Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 11, Election Amendment Act.

In Committee A, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for Ministry of Labour.

In committee room C, I call continued debate on the Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

The Chair: I call Committee of the Whole to order.

We’re on Bill 11, Election Amendment Act.

On clause 1 (continued).

M. de Jong: Prior to the lunch break, we were exploring, as part of the general conversation here in section 1, the fact that the government has chosen not to incorporate a specific recommendation arising out of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report relating to foreign interference in B.C. elections. I just have a couple more questions about that. I think my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has several questions as well.

I just want to be clear about this, if we can, for the committee. I’m not suggesting that the Attorney General said this, but I do want to be clear. Did the Chief Electoral Officer ever suggest to the Attorney General that he would prefer not to have the recommendations contained in recommendation 2 and foreign influence dealt with? Did he ever make that specific request of the Attorney or the government?

J. Sims: Asking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Sims: It’s my great pleasure to introduce to you a friend who I met again today at lunch time, Professor Chaman Lal. Professor Chaman Lal is here visiting Surrey and the rest of the Lower Mainland. I have to say Surrey first.

He has a PhD in Hindi literature. That’s his speciality. He is a visiting professor at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad. He is a professor at JNU University in Delhi. He’s the honorary adviser of the Bhagat Singh Archives and Resource Centre. For those of you who don’t know, Bhagat Singh was one of the freedom fighters that is associated with India winning its independence.

[1:40 p.m.]

He also is president of the JNU Teachers Association and very close to my heart because of his teaching credentials but also because of his commitment to social justice and building a more equal world for everyone.

Please help me welcome Professor Chaman Lal to the chambers.

K. Greene: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Greene: I’d like to introduce Paul Bains. He’s a former vice-president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union. He’s also a human rights activist and union activist trying to make life better for all workers and our communities.

He’s also my constituent, and my son and his granddaughter are friends and classmates and enjoy each other’s company.

I’d just like to have everybody make him feel welcome.

M. Elmore: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

M. Elmore: Joining the group today we have Santokh Dhesi, philanthropist, founder of the Shaheed Bhagat Singh five-kilometre run. We also have Iqbal Puruwal, president of the East Indian Defence Committee of British Columbia and also a founding member of the Shaheed Bhagat Singh five-kilometre run, and the understated but very accomplished Dr. Sandhu Singh, teacher, writer, translator.

And with my mentor — also a shout-out — Paul Bains. He’s responsible for me being here in this place. When I was a transit operator and an activist, a job steward in the Canadian Auto Workers, he was vice-president and took me under his wing. I attribute him and his leadership and guidance and support for me being here in this place.

I ask everyone to please give a very warm welcome for all our guests.

[1:45 p.m.]

Debate Continued

Hon. N. Sharma: I don’t think the…. Definitely the process is not as clear as what the member’s question poses. It is a conversation with the Electoral Officer and the work that we have to do that factors in many things in the decision of prioritization. Keeping in mind that the next election in October ’24 will be the first provincial election that takes place with the 2019 voting modernization amendments in force and new electoral districts and the changes that we proposed here.

When we talk about prioritization of what goes through in each amendment, it has to factor in the discussions of the Chief Electoral Officer about administrative and operational things that flow from each of the decisions. It’s a more complicated decision-making process than yes or no for each of the recommendations in the report, but we’re always in conversation about what can be changed and fixed up over time.

I just wanted to add to this conversation about foreign interference with the various changes that have been made over time. The way foreign interference shows up, just like any interference in our election, is through direct actions, right, that would impact or show up in the electoral process. The way you combat it is by strengthening up your electoral process in general to make sure that there are restrictions in place that would limit that, and we’ve been doing that since 2017.

Of course it shows our commitment to our electoral process. In 2017 we restricted sponsorship and political donations to B.C. residents and Canadian citizens. There is a restriction in there that only Canadian citizens can run and hold office. There are strict limits on spending for third parties, which was more changes in 2017, and a whole bunch of transparency obligations.

A zero threshold for third parties to register if they’re going to be doing advertising, and this is another step. This is combating one particular way to interfere with election, which is through disinformation. Also in this bill is insurance that there’s independence between the third party advertisers and the candidates.

All of these as a whole since 2017 are a very strong response. I think we’re the first in Canada to take any action on disinformation in our election. It’s a strong response to make sure any actor that tries to interfere with our elections, whether they’re local or foreign, are going to face restrictions and barriers. It’s a continual process. We’ll always be thinking about different ways to change our elections in B.C.

[1:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’m gratified to hear and learn that the Attorney has some general thoughts on the issue of foreign interference that she’s prepared to share with the committee, and I expect my colleague from Vancouver-Langara will want to avail himself of the invitation to have more of that conversation. I pledge, though, to restrict my questions, and I intend to do that.

I am going to be particular about one aspect of this, and that is in the context of a report from the Chief Electoral Officer that informs this legislation that contains a very specific assessment of risk and very specific recommendations about how to address and minimize that risk of foreign interference.

The Attorney General can confirm that the ultimate decision on prioritizing which recommendations will be proceeded with and be dealt with in the legislation, and which will not, will have to await future legislative initiatives. That ultimate decision is made by the government and, in this case, by the Attorney General. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, that’s true.

M. de Jong: With that in mind, then, is it fair for me to…. In the case of the 2020 report, the Attorney General is satisfied that the recommendations dealing with the risk of foreign interference ranked in priority behind recommendations that were specifically addressed in the legislation — for example, expanding the scope and transparency of third-party advertising requirements. The Attorney was satisfied that that was a bigger priority than addressing the risk of foreign interference.

Hon. N. Sharma: I am just going to challenge the premise of the question a little bit.

What we do in our prioritization exercise with the Chief Electoral Officer is identify the biggest concerns that the Chief Electoral Officer has and the achievability of putting it into the next election. What the Chief Electoral Officer identified through that process was the rise of disinformation and its impact on our elections and asking for better tools to do that. Now that includes foreign interference through disinformation.

This legislation doesn’t rank whether or not I believe this is a bigger threat or that is; it addresses a challenge, whether it’s a foreign interference actor or a local actor re­lated to disinformation in the election, which was seen as something that was identified and rising and needed to be addressed. We’re the first jurisdiction in Canada to do so.

M. de Jong: I have read into the record the risk and the concerns that the Chief Electoral Officer identified in the report that gave rise to six specific recommendations, four of which are addressed specifically in the legislation.

[1:55 p.m.]

I haven’t, to this point, referred to the recommendations, but I guess I will because the Attorney, I think, wants to leave the impression that somehow another way has been found to deal with the general concern and that there is overlap and misinformation from a foreign source. But these recommendations are very specific and relate to a risk that the Chief Electoral Officer identified.

He recommended that, firstly, all individuals and organizations that sponsor third party advertising be a resident of B.C. if they are an individual or be a registered organization within B.C. that has one or more directors who reside in B.C. if they’re an organization; that they be required to open a separate sponsorship account for all transactions if they sponsor election advertising with a total value of more than $500; that they be required to purchase advertising in Canadian funds from a Canadian bank account; that there be laws prohibiting advertising platforms from accepting election advertising from foreign or out-of-prov­ince entities; and finally, limit the amount of self-funding for third party advertising sponsors to a reasonable amount.

That’s the collection of very specific recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer identified to address a very specific risk that he wrote about separately in his report and identified under a separate heading of risk relating to foreign interference. I do not see anywhere in Bill 11 any provisions that would address any of those specific recommendations the Chief Electoral Officer offered to address that risk.

If I’m mistaken, the Attorney can tell me, but will she point to the sections of the bill that address those recommendations provided by the Chief Electoral Officer?

Hon. N. Sharma: I have answered this question before about the very particular recommendations and portion of the report the member brings up. I’ll say it again. It’s a prioritization process we had to make in terms of what we needed to move forward on in this particular amendment to the Election Act before the next election. That does not mean that the rest of the recommendation or the recommendations particularly that the member raised are not something we won’t do in the future, that we won’t add to the electoral act in the future.

M. de Jong: We are drawing perilously close to a meeting of the minds on this. My only suggestion here is that the evidence suggests that the government and now the Attorney prioritized other areas and other recommendations.

I referred to the recommendation around expanding the scope and transparency of third-party advertising requirements, that the government concluded that that was more of a priority today than the recommendations around protecting against foreign influence. Similarly, for the recommendation to ensure digital platform compliance with the Election Act the decision was made that that is a greater priority today than addressing the risk around foreign interference.

I think the Attorney General has confirmed that, but I want to be clear. That is the point I am trying to make. I am not suggesting at this point that the Attorney or the government have ruled out coming back to these recommendations. I don’t think I’ve ever made that suggestion. I am suggesting that there is evidence before us in the guise of Bill 11 that the Attorney and the government attached a greater priority to those other areas and chose to proceed with them and a lesser priority to the recommendations dealing with foreign interference or the risk of foreign interference.

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll say again, just to make it clear, that it’s correct that it’s a prioritization exercise just like any drafting of legislation, but it’s informed by what’s happening and what the Chief Electoral Officer tells us. I think — as I mentioned before, and we’ve all seen — that disinformation, whether it’s through foreign interference or local interference, has been on the rise and actually happening in B.C. and other jurisdictions. The Chief Electoral Officer had asked for better tools to combat that disinformation.

So that is a very substantial step into preventing types of interference with respect to the very particular recommendations that the member raises. That is exactly, as I mentioned before, part of the ongoing work we need to do with the Chief Electoral Officer to see how we can continue to strengthen our Elections Act going forward.

The Chair: I’ve heard that three times, so I’m going to suggest that we move on to another line of questioning.

Recognizing the member.

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, as always for the guidance.

When we get to, as inevitably we will, the sections of the bill dealing with misinformation, I think we’ll discover that they relate to very limited forms of misinformation. We can canvass that in more detail.

I’m simply going to say this before ceding my place to the member for Vancouver-Langara. I accept that there is, as always, an exercise in prioritization that needs to take place. I’m not sure I agree, in this instance, with the lower priority that the Attorney and the government have attached to this particular recommendation.

All of us in this place in particular are alive, and many other Canadians and British Columbians, to the concerns that have been expressed around the overall integrity of the electoral system in Canada and, by extension, here in British Columbia. We’ve had an example just in the last few days here at the Assembly where concerns have been expressed about attempts by foreign jurisdictions to exercise undue influence on our political process.

I think my task at the moment is to ensure that the record shows that, while I fully understand it is for the government and the Attorney to establish priorities and proceed on that basis, I don’t agree, in this case, with the decision they’ve made to not address the specific risk identified by the Chief Electoral Officer in one of the two reports that really did inform the bill and the contents of the bill that are before us.

But with those comments — I’m not sure the Attorney has to respond unless she wishes to — I think my colleague will have some questions for her.

M. Lee: I appreciate my colleague, the member for Abbotsford West, for extending the opportunity here at the committee stage on this bill.

Both the member for Abbotsford West and myself spoke at length — as I would expect the Attorney General would recognize — at second reading on this bill, in terms of Bill 11, about the considerations that the member for Abbotsford West has spelled out and had some responses from the Attorney General for and for which I’ve also made comment in my second reading speech.

[2:05 p.m.]

I’ve certainly listened carefully to the exchanges be­tween the member for Abbotsford West and the Attorney General and have a few other additional questions that I’d like to approach with the Attorney General.

Let me just first say that there’s recognition here that this is the opportunity. The Attorney General has mentioned that for administrative and operational considerations, the approach on prioritizing the six recommendations coming out of the May 2020 report with the Chief Electoral Officer was done with that in mind. Meaning, as the Attorney General states, there’s the further implementation of the amendments from 2019, of course, the electoral boundaries redistribution and the amendments that are set out in this bill.

But I do think that just for that same very reason, this is an important committee discussion, as we consider in this chamber the further amendments to the Election Act of this province because, as the minister and the Attorney General just indicated, this is our last opportunity before the next election. So with that in mind, I appreciate that the Attorney General has confirmed to the member from Abbotsford West that the amendments that are proposed in Bill 11 stem from the two reports from Elections B.C., the May 2020 and May 2022 reports.

I know that in discussions here we’ve been focused on recommendation No. 2. But the reason why the May 2020 report is of importance is because even in the lead-in to this report, recognizing the Attorney General has confirmed that this report forms the legislative foundation and framework for these amendments in Bill 11, it refers to three different threats: foreign interference, deliberate disinformation campaigns and anonymous digital advertising.

In that first paragraph of this report, in the executive summary on page one, the statement is: “While these threats have not been widely observed in British Columbia, the risks they present in our electoral process are real.” That’s a direct quote.

I’m going to come back to this point in a moment, but let me make one more point just at the outset. The view that we take here, as articulated in our second reading speeches, is that since 2016 there has been a sea change of risk that is identified and spoken to as you read on in the report of Elections B.C. There is certainly recognition, for example, of the 2016 U.S. presidential election where there is a direct quote from special counsel Robert Mueller, who stated that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion.

The same considerations and concerns relating to the 2016 Brexit referendum, where campaign finance provisions, harvested data, misleading online advertising by a British Columbia–based firm, Aggregate I.Q., and Cambridge Analytica, a British consulting firm…. These were the bodies that were behind, it is alleged, those misleading campaigns in Brexit 2016.

It’s the same involvements globally that…. When we say digital communications and disinformation, we recognize that the recommendations that are being incorporated in the amendments to the Election Act recognize the global changing nature of pressures and risks that state governments — whether in Russia, China or Iran, for example — are interfering.

[2:10 p.m.]

Concerns of interference and influence in our democratic processes, including in the U.S. and Canada — that is a risk. Let me ask…. The Attorney General referenced repeatedly, in response to the member for Abbotsford West, that the Chief Electoral Officer was not able to cite any documented evidence of foreign interference.

Is that the test that government was using, when it was going through the considerations of priorities with the Chief Electoral Officer: that there needed to be documented evidence, first, of foreign interference, before this government would address the risks of foreign interference?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m going to start by saying that, again, as I’ve been saying since we’ve been on this clause for a few hours now, it’s very unusual to be speaking about something that’s not in a piece of legislation, instead of what is in the legislation, before what we’ve talked about.

I would say to the question that, no, there is not a test. I think there’s ample evidence that I’ve laid out, since 2017, of the changes that we’ve made — including, in 2017, restricting sponsorship and political contributions from anybody outside of B.C. or Canada. That’s an example of something. We’ve been continually improving our elections, to strengthen them against any interference.

M. Lee: The six recommendations that are set out in this report, four of which…. Again, we haven’t gotten to that detail just yet in terms of how the other four recommendations, specifically, are incorporated in the bill. I’m sure that that will arise during this committee discussion.

Assuming for the moment, and perhaps the Attorney General can confirm, that the other four recommendations are incorporated in this bill, it’s important that we understand the interaction between all six recommendations as to why, for discussion purposes here, only four of the six recommendations were actually prioritized to be incorporated into this bill at this time, when we’re talking about three different categories of risk.

First, I’d like the Attorney General to confirm that the other four recommendations are incorporated into this bill. Secondly, does this government recognize the risk of foreign interference, beyond documented evidence? Is it the case that this government needs to have documented evidence in order to act on recommendations 2 and 3?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, we’re talking about something that’s not actually in the legislation. But I will go through, first of all, to say that since 2017, as I mentioned before, our government has been taking action, through legislative reform, to make our elections stronger and prevent interference from all bodies, including foreign interference. That includes up to what you see today, which is disinformation — which, I think, as most people understand, has been on the rise and affecting our elections. There are clear examples of that.

This steps into the space of preventing parties, organizations or people, including foreign bodies, from interfering with disinformation on elections. It is something we take seriously as a government.

With respect to recommendations, it’s not so clear to list out, in a kind of check box manner, what we’re implementing and what we’re not. We’re making substantial progress on a lot of the recommendations in the report. How that shows up…. There are many sub-recommendations under the main recommendations. I think it’s fair to say that we’re making substantial progress on a majority of the recommendations in the report, but there’s always more work to do.

M. Lee: I appreciate the Attorney General has responded, as she did in even the closure on second reading, in that way.

The concern is where we’re at. This is not an election-by-election type of situation. The pace of the threat and change globally is very rapid. As we’ve seen with concerns expressed by Canadian Security Intelligence bodies about the last two federal elections and the last municipal election in Vancouver, it would be surprising that British Columbia, in its provincial election, is not subject to the same level of risk.

I don’t hear the Attorney General suggesting that, necessarily, but we’ve gone from not focusing on documented evidence, I believe, to an acknowledgment of risk, unless the Attorney General clarifies that. If that’s the case, it would be, certainly, a prudent view for this government to take it that Elections B.C., as the Attorney General referred to earlier in a previous response, needs every tool. That would have been to provide Elections B.C. with all six recommendations.

[2:20 p.m.]

For example, why I say that is this. One of the recommendations that we understand…. Perhaps, again, I’d ask the Attorney General confirm that the other four recommendations — meaning 1, 4, 5 and 6 — are incorporated into this bill.

If that’s the case, then recommendation No. 1, in the lead-up language to that assessment and recommendation itself, refers to, again, the U.S. presidential election of 2016 and that there were many examples of voter suppression and disinformation tactics that can negatively impact the fairness of an election.

It gives an example of a well-known celebrity, Aziz Ansari — I certainly appreciate his work and his comedy — as someone who was there with a doctored image in his image, published by a fake Russian account in a tweet during the 2016 U.S. election. This is an example that Elections B.C. is citing. This is the example of a cross-section between recommendation No. 1 and recommendation No. 2.

Yet what we have before us in this bill are recommendations to deal with deliberate disinformation, as the Attorney General has indicated, but not with the other counterpart tool, which is to directly bring out and require that an organization that is sponsoring third-party advertising be a B.C. resident, open a separate sponsorship account and purchase advertising dollars in Canadian funds from a Canadian bank account.

There clearly are tools here structurally that would also deal with the attempts to spread disinformation, when you can act to restrict a foreign actor, a body that is acting on behalf of a foreign player. This is exactly why, as you look through the recommendations, it’s important for us to have a good understanding as to why this government has decided not to implement recommendation No. 2. This is not something I believe our democracy and our electoral system can wait…. There are clearly threats internationally, domestically and in this province.

Does the Attorney General not see the importance of also dealing with foreign interference as it relates to disinformation?

Hon. N. Sharma: We are taking action on disinformation when it comes to foreign interference, and I can go through the various elements of the bill, once we get to it, that do that.

The specific examples the member provides, and he provided a few where there was a foreign actor spreading disinformation in an election, are exactly why we changed the legislation with the guidance of the Chief Electoral Officer to give him tools to be able to respond, including takedown tools and enforcement provisions for the spread of that disinformation.

[2:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: I would suggest that is only one tool or set of tools that is specifically designed to deal with disinformation in the way that it’s expressed in this bill. Of course, we’ll get to that section through the member from Abbotsford West.

In terms of other tools to deal with foreign interference that are clearly set out under recommendation No. 2, those tools are being left out of this act, which means the ability…. I think there is a…. It sounds to me, from the Attorney General, that there has been some sort of underestimation, let’s say, of the challenge in front of the Chief Electoral Officer — the fact that there is a rapid, changing nature of this.

This is since…. We’re talking about, of course, recommendations that were set out in a May of 2020 report, almost three years ago. So the time to actually consider and implement changes clearly has been there, but for the fact that we went into a snap election in the middle of the pandemic, in September and October 2020. Other than that interruption of focus, there has been almost three years for consideration of the necessary changes while more indications of risk have certainly been identified. Again, we continue to see that in this country.

This is the reason why it’s important we have an indication here from the Attorney General in this government as to why these particular recommendations to deal with foreign interference are not being dealt with by this bill. It seems to me that it is out of…. One can talk about priorities and what’s doable, but I think the government is underestimating the level of risk.

Given the reliance upon Elections B.C. and the Chief Electoral Officer in the discussions to determine the priorities over the last three years since his report and since the second report in May of 2022, is the Attorney General aware of any other third-party input to the Chief Electoral Officer to assess the risk, meaning has there been any access to his federal government counterparts — Foreign Affairs, the Canadian security agency, CSIS? Has there been any discussion of any nature that assesses the further risk to our province in our electoral process?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I believe the member’s question was whether or not the CEO was having conversations with CSIS. That’s not something I know about or can talk about in the House and, certainly, is outside the scope of the legislation that we’re talking about here today.

M. Lee: What other assessments has the government done on the risk of foreign interference to the electoral process in British Columbia?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We have a very rigorous process in B.C. with our elections. I think this bill is an example of that.

After each election, the Chief Electoral Officer will analyze the election, including any risks that appeared. Some of the reports that we’ve been talking about today are an example of that. And what they have is a legislature that responds to that risk by amending the legislation constantly to address that.

I’ll just remind the member of 2017 changes that restricted any political donations from people that were B.C. residents and Canadian citizens. We’ve been constantly changing and updating the elections to respond to risk, and we’ll continue to do that.

M. Lee: I think we’ve canvassed the understanding of the Attorney General as she presents this bill in this House.

The Attorney General has heard the concerns expressed by the member for Abbotsford West and myself as to the lack of estimation around the level of risk that is occurring with this bill in terms of not incorporating recommendation No. 2, for the reasons that are set out in the report itself by the Chief Electoral Officer. I haven’t really heard any good reason, other than practicality, in terms of administrative and operational considerations, over a three-year period, which seems less than satisfactory when we’re talking about the level of risk that continues to increase, year over year, since this report has been written and tabled.

It’s my view that the government and this Legislative Assembly can’t continue to play catch-up on something that is emerging in the way that it is. I’m quite concerned about the level of risk from foreign interference and influence in our electoral process. I’m going to…. I think the Attorney General has heard that comment repeatedly, as you know, Madam Chair.

At this point, I’m just going to turn it back over to my colleague the member for Abbotsford West. I know that we have some other considerations here, in terms of this report from May of 2020.

M. de Jong: The other recommendation noteworthy for the lack of attention it’s attracting in the legislation before us is from the CEO. It’s, again, in his report of 2020, where he recommended increased transparency around the use of social media bots.

I must confess…. As I said in the second reading remarks, I embark upon any kind of a conversation about this with some measure of trepidation. But I think the Attorney General understands what the nature of the questioning will be here.

Again, the Chief Electoral Officer has identified what he sees as a genuine concern about the misuse of technology and social media technology. I’ll ask the general question for the Attorney. Does she share that concern, as expressed by the CEO, around the misuse of technology and, particularly, social media bots?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I will again say…. This is outside the scope of what’s contained in the legislation that we’re discussing.

I can tell the member that the analysis that my team did with respect to bots found that this type of behaviour is likely addressed by a law that has broader application, rather than under the election-specific context. The use of bots to generate and amplify social media content actually violates, already, many social media companies’ policies. If detected, companies remove the offending accounts.

Like I said before, all the recommendations from the CEO in those reports are still being considered by government. This is just, if you think of it, one response, in a continued response, to the reports.

M. de Jong: Well, for the record, then, here is a summary of what the Chief Electoral Officer said in his report.

“Social media bots can be used for legitimate purposes.” He then continues: “But they can also be used by malicious actors to artificially elevate content and influence voter behaviour.”

He goes on, a little further down, on page 13 of his report: “Social media bots are prolific and can interact — e.g., like, share and message — at an inhuman rate. Bots can produce over 600 messages a day, which equates to posting a new message every minute for ten hours straight.”

He then goes on to talk about the technical challenges in regulating automated activity online but points to California laws that have been passed to make it illegal to communicate with individuals online via bots to sell products or influence a vote in an election, unless it makes clear that the account communicating is automated.

He actually points to a piece of legislation that was passed by the government prior to 2020, prior to the Attorney’s arrival here, Bill 27, in 2019. The Ticket Sales Act prohibits the use of automated software to secure tickets for resale.

He then has this to say: “Currently the Election Act does not require an election ad to state that it was published by a bot. To ensure that voters know they are communicating with an automated program, election advertisements that use bots should be required to disclose their automated nature. This would help voters make informed decisions.”

He follows up with two recommendations. One is: “Require social media bots that publish election advertising, as defined by the Election Act, to disclose their automated nature.”

I’ll stop there and simply ask the Attorney General to confirm two things. One, under the existing act, there is nothing that requires a social media bot that publishes election advertising to disclose their automated nature. Secondly, there is nothing in the amendments before the House, in this bill, that would require a social media bot to disclose their automated nature.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: With our changes to the legislation with respect to disinformation, if a bot is spreading disinformation, of course, that would just be exponentially at a faster rate. The Chief Electoral Officer has the takedown provisions and the enforcement provisions related to that effort. That’s probably, you would think, about the most disruptive use of a bot when it comes to interfering with an election, with the spreading of disinformation.

With respect to, I think, the second question, I have given my answer about our analysis about whether broader legislation was needed to combat bots or enforcement under social media platforms’ own policies.

M. de Jong: The second specific recommendation from the Chief Electoral Officer is that amendments be incorporated into the act that “require the disclosure of a bot’s automated nature to be clear and unambiguous, so that any reasonable person would know they are communicating with a bot.” Does section 1 or any other section of the bill before us, once enacted, require the disclosure of a bot’s automated nature so that a person would know they are communicating with a bot?

Hon. N. Sharma: Same answer as before. Our team is still working through the recommendations with relation to bots and our answer to those recommendations and whether it needs to be broader.

M. de Jong: I’m going to say this sort of parenthetically. There have been times during this debate and in previous bills where I have appreciated the fact that the Attorney has been prepared to get up and answer a question in a forthright manner. I mean, the answer is no. There is nothing in this legislation that requires the disclosure of a bot’s automated nature to be clear so that a reasonable person would know they’re communicating with a bot. And the Attorney…. What follows from that is: the government may consider something like that in the future.

I think this is worth saying. The Chief Electoral Officer is worried that people are being inundated with messages that are made to appear that they come from a human being and come from a machine. He’s worried that that is having an adverse impact on voter behaviour.

I know my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has a few questions. I’m simply going to ask this. This use or, as the Chief Electoral Officer calls it, misuse of social media technology presumably is not going to diminish. It is going to become more prolific. There is nothing to prevent the misuse of having communications with people and making it appear that it’s a human being when it’s not. The Chief Electoral Officer sees that as a problem. It’s a bigger problem when it’s misinformation, I’ll grant you that.

[2:45 p.m.]

But the Chief Electoral Officer says that it’s a problem that people think they’re talking to a human being, and they’re not. It strikes me that that is something that it would have been worthwhile to address. As we have discovered from other exchanges, apparently that’s not going to happen until sometime after another electoral exercise in B.C. That is a choice that the government and the Attorney General have made. I think it’s a regrettable choice. It does, obviously, speak to priorities.

If I’m wrong…. If somewhere in Bill 11, or somewhere in the existing act, there are provisions that make it clear that you’re entitled to know if you’re talking to a bot, then I’m all ears. But that is not the Chief Electoral Officer’s impression, nor is it mine.

Hon. N. Sharma: Same answer. No, there’s no direct provision, as I mentioned, and we’re working on it. It’s complicated how bots show up in elections, and it may require broader legislation. This is what I mentioned before.

If you think about it, in some ways, our advertising rules require transparency of who is advertising and who paid for that advertising. The disinformation provisions will allow, whether it’s a bot or not, there to be a takedown provision of the spread of disinformation.

As I mentioned before, there’s broader work that needs to be done on bots and how they show up and what we can do to make sure they are identified.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to again join the member for Abbotsford West in this line of questioning. This, of course, stems from recommendation 3 not being addressed in Bill 11.

As the Attorney General has referred to, there are other elements of the bill that she is suggesting, in some ways, whether it’s takedowns or otherwise, regulation of disinformation. That would be one way of getting at these concerns.

Here we have another example, a critical one, of a tool. It’s a tool for which…. As we’ve seen, as set out on page 13 of the May 2020 report, where the Chief Electoral Officer spells out that foreign influence is also a concern….

“Twitter accounts linked to Russia, Iran and Venezuela have attempted to influence conversations on contentious issues, such as pipelines and immigration, during and between federal election campaigns in Canada. Some of these accounts were automated.”

The link, which is included in the report in footnote 42, refers to an article in the media which did an analysis of 9.6 million tweets. That review in the 2019 period indicated the level of troll accounts that were suspected of having originated in Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

This, I believe, is the concern that the Chief Electoral Officer is speaking to, which includes a report in 2019 that “Russian trolls appeared to be trying to sow division among Canadians by tweeting provocative statements on hot-button issues like refugees and immigration.”

[2:50 p.m.]

This is a separate recommendation in the report. As much as the Attorney General suggests that there are other mechanisms in the bill that we have in front of us and that address similar types of concerns, the fact of the matter is that the Chief Electoral Officer has spelled out a set of separate recommendations, as the member for Abbotsford West read into the record.

When we’re talking about the volume of automation that foreign state governments appear to have been attempting to use to influence election processes in the United States and Canada, is the Attorney General satisfied that the Chief Electoral Officer has the tools necessary to address this concern?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think I answered this previously, but I’ll repeat it: it’s complicated when it comes to addressing bots, and we’re doing further analysis on what’s needed on that.

For example, there are Charter rights that are implicated, potentially. There are tools that are needed, and an ever-changing technology. So although it’s very clear that we’ve given the Chief Electoral Officer takedown provisions when there’s a spread of disinformation, whether they’re bots or not, there’s more work to be done with respect to how we address bots in general. That may be broader than this piece of legislation.

M. Lee: The complicated nature of this also demonstrates the fact that foreign state actors can exploit the complex nature of trying to regulate this area, which is the reason why the Chief Electoral Officer has set out specific recommendations that require disclosure.

Well, let me let me just ask the Attorney General. Earlier, of course, we were discussing, at length, with the member for Abbotsford West, the phases of development of this bill and the discussions that were had with the Chief Electoral Officer. When it came to consideration of these specific recommendations, what was the understanding that the Attorney General, or members of her team here, had, as to why the Chief Electoral Officer was making these specific recommendations around disclosure of bots and their activities?

Hon. N. Sharma: I believe the question is: why is the Chief Electoral Officer making the recommendations? In response, I’d say it’s pretty clearly laid out in the report. The member has articulated that by quoting the report. I’ll just leave it in the Chief Electoral Officer’s own words in the report.

M. Lee: This is the reason why, of course, we’re spending this amount of time reviewing the words of the Chief Electoral Officer in the report — words, discussions, points and recommendations that the Chief Electoral Officer is making and that this government has chosen not to implement. What we’re trying to address is getting a good understanding as to why this government has chosen not to regulate and deal with recommendations around foreign interference, as well as to increase transparency around the use of social media bots.

[2:55 p.m.]

By invitation of the Attorney General to re-read the report, I can read the report again, which actually ad­dresses the point that the Attorney General made in the second previous response to my question, which was recognizing that “though it may be technically challenging, regulating automated activity online is possible.” That’s a direct quote from the report.

The Attorney General referred to other considerations, but the Chief Electoral Officer, in response, would say, “British Columbia recently passed Bill 27,” in 2019, almost four years ago. It was already mentioned by the member for Abbotsford West, the Ticket Sales Act. When I look at the Ticket Sales Act, it’s a fairly comprehensive act, including court proceedings.

I would have thought that the Attorney General of this province, in tabling that bill, would have done the necessary review, with his legal team and other internal counsel at the Attorney General Ministry, to ensure that it complies with the Charter rights of British Columbians. I would have thought that that work has already taken place, which is the reason why the Chief Electoral Officer is saying that regulating this type of online automated activity is possible: because it has been done before in this province under that act.

Again, having addressed it from the words of the Chief Electoral Officer in the Elections B.C. report, as the Attorney General just asked me to do, can I ask: why has the government chosen not to implement these two specific recommendations to increase disclosure around social media bots?

Hon. N. Sharma: As I’ve mentioned before, it’s because we believe, through our analysis, that more work needs to be done in deciding how to respond to bots and whether it may be broader legislation that is needed.

The quote, read by the member, from the Chief Electoral Officer also says how complicated it is to regulate this type of activity — particularly when it comes to elections, when Charter rights and freedom of expression are implicated — in the context of a debate during a part of our democracy.

M. Lee: I will say that there are other precedents in other countries — including the state of California, which is referred to, of course — that have had similar statutes to deal with bots, as well, in the context of influencing a vote in an election.

Let me just say this, though, before turning it back over to my friend the member for Abbotsford West. The considerations that we’ve heard in this chamber around recom­mendation 2 and recommendation 3 not being adopted and implemented for this bill, are truly concerning, as we see the continued rise of the challenges of foreign influence and foreign interference in electoral processes and other conduct on issues by governments in our country.

This is a huge concern. It’s a huge concern that was addressed and spelled out through specific recommendations three years ago. As we’ve talked about in our second reading speeches as well, the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Andrew Wilkinson, put forward a private member’s bill to address foreign influence. That is also cited and recognized and acknowledged by this report in May of 2020.

It recognizes that the official opposition had advocated and brought forward legislative changes to address foreign interference in various aspects of public policy, including electoral legislation. That included penalties and fines.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is not a new issue. This was being addressed four years ago by the official opposition, three years ago by the Chief Electoral Officer in this province. I’m very concerned, with other members of our caucus here, as we see the continued rapid nature and developments that we’re seeing, not just in the last number of weeks and months. They date back to 2016 in the United States and the U.K., and now in this country.

This is not a choice. When government makes a choice to only implement certain tools and not others, we’re really, truly hamstringing our Chief Electoral Officer, in terms of the ability of the CEO and Elections B.C. to ensure the fundamental integrity of our democratic process.

I know the Attorney General has heard, through many lines of questioning here…. I think we’ve clearly expressed our concerns. We’ve heard responses from the Attorney General on behalf of the government as to why they chose not to proceed with those recommendations.

I think they’re very concerning. I’m very concerned that what has happened now is, as we look at the rest of this bill, as we get through the rest of section 1, that we are vulnerable. We continue to be vulnerable for the reasons that are spelled out in the report.

So with those concerns again tabled here, I just invite and turn it back over to my colleague the member for Abbotsford West, unless the Attorney General chooses to respond any further to my further concerns.

Hon. N. Sharma: In response, I’d just like to say that this government, in a very unprecedented way, especially with this bill, has been taking action since 2017 when it comes to strengthening our elections, taking the risks seriously on our election campaigns and always responding to the Chief Electoral Officer.

In 2017, we restricted sponsorship and political contributions to residents of B.C. and Canada. We restricted limits on third-party advertising. We increased transparency when it came to who was advertising and how. We’ve continually responded, and this is another example of our response with disinformation, strengthening our ability to make our elections fair.

With that, we’ll move on to the next member.

M. de Jong: We’ll get to some of the other provisions of clause 1, only to say…. The evolution of election law takes place, as the Attorney said, on an ongoing basis. Sometimes they come undone.

It was a remarkable step, some 20-plus years ago, when B.C. became the first government in the country to eliminate the manipulation of election dates. We talk about manipulation, and that was a practice that governments of all political stripes thought was their right.

I remember, when that happened, attending a federal-provincial meeting a few weeks later and being accosted by other ministers from other provinces, saying: “Have you lost your mind?” The ability for incumbent governments to manipulate when a date was to political advantage — that served the province pretty well. Regrettably, I’m not sure it’s on as solid a foundation today as it once was, but there have been these changes over time.

I think the message from the member from Langara and me today, which I am ever-hopeful the Attorney recognizes, is that there are infrequent opportunities to address election laws, especially as it relates to oncoming electoral contests. We think that an opportunity has been missed here, with respect to two pretty important recommendations from the CEO.

[3:05 p.m.]

The Attorney has said: “Fear not. We may yet get to them.” But I think we’ve also heard that if we do get to them, it will be after another electoral contest and not before. That is something that the Attorney and the committee has, I hope, heard us express our concerns about and dissatisfaction with.

The remainder of section 1 includes a new definition: authorized drop-off locations. I understand that the issue here was, in the past election…. This relates to mail-in ballots. Having these drop-off locations was authorized by OIC. But what we’re trying to do is create a specific authority for either the district electoral officer or the Chief Electoral Officer to designate these drop-off locations. They are specifically for mail-in ballots. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: I won’t do it here, but at some point, I’m going to ask the Attorney…. Let me just make sure I’m cross-referencing.

Maybe I will do it here, because we’re talking about mail-in voting packages. Just have a quick, general conversation. We don’t have to do it later in the act, later in the statute, when we get to other technical provisions.

There have always been mail-in voting packages. It became a much larger feature of the election landscape in 2020 for reasons that we’re all familiar with. There are provisions in the act about how to acquire a mail-in voting package in section 105; how to get a replacement mail-in, and I think those provisions are amended later in this act; and how to vote using a mail-in package. So it’s all laid out there.

But for reasons that will become apparent later in this bill, can the Attorney give a little bit of an overview? There are different kinds of mail-in ballots. There is a mail-in ballot that contains the names of all of the candidates in an electoral district. We’ll call that a sort of conventional mail-in ballot.

Then there’s a mail-in ballot that is a write-in ballot, where a voter is obliged to do certain things. Can the Attorney explain, for the purposes of this and other sections, the difference? What distinguishes whether a voter will get a mail-in ballot that is complete with the names of candidates and identifies candidates and a mail-in ballot that is blank and requires write-in provisions?

Some of it, I’m sure, has to do with the timing of when it’s requested, but maybe the Attorney can provide that overview of those two different kinds of mail-in ballots.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The way it works is that if it is before a nomination race has been completed, so they don’t know the names of the candidates, then it would be a write-in ballot. But if it’s after the nomination has been completed, it would be a conventional ballot.

M. de Jong: An application for a mail-in voting package, we know, in section 105, can be made up to four hours before the time set by a separate section. How early can you get a mail-in voting package? Must it be during the writ period, during the pre-election period? How early can a person obtain a mail-in voting package?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: We have an answer from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer on this one of how it rolls out. Of course, mail-in ballots are by request. When an election is called, it’s that time period that they solicit, Elections B.C. to the Chief Electoral Officer, whether people want a mail-in ballot, and then they’re sent out. It’s around that time, I guess, that mail-in ballots are sent out.

Sometimes it’s several weeks before if it’s a fixed election date, because people know what the date is and they may ask, so they may accommodate for mailing times and something like that. This is more of an operational accommodation to make sure it gets to them on time.

M. de Jong: It doesn’t sound like there’s a legislated or regulated date. It sounds like the Chief Electoral Officer is vested with the authority to determine when the appropriate time is to begin responding to applications for a mail-in ballot. Have I got that essentially correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: From the Chief Electoral Officer’s staff that are letting us know, it’s related to the timing of an election. Mail-in ballots they would provide to people when it’s around an election time. It doesn’t make sense if it’s years ahead of time. Operationally, it’s always associated, in my understanding, with an election period.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I didn’t mean for this to be contentious.

It doesn’t sound like there’s a specified date before which a mail-in ballot can’t be applied for. It sounds like, though, the advice from the Chief Electoral Officer is they’re not likely to respond to a request for a mail-in ballot until we’re in a writ period.

Hon. N. Sharma: A circumstance…. This is an operational thing, as the member said. It’s based on making sure fairness and mail-in ballots come to people on time. So although it’s not a legislated timeline, there may be situations where, to accommodate for mailing time and it’s a fixed election date, you might send a mail-in ballot a couple of weeks in advance of the writ period.

That’s a decision that’s left up to the Chief Electoral Officer and their team to figure out — fairness and making sure it gets out there. I mean, generally speaking, mail-in ballots are associated and requested during the election period.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I’ll try to lump together a few of these questions to move us through this.

The Attorney is fully aware that participation rates in elections at all levels of government continue, sadly, to fall in this country. Does the government view a mail-in voting process, mail-in ballots, as a possible means and a possible contributor to reversing that trend? And does it, therefore, seek to purposely promote the use of mail-in ballots, or is this just another option?

I’m sure the minister is going to say she recognizes the challenge of declining participation rates. But is what follows…? Is there a purposeful attempt to draw on the mail-in ballot option to try and reverse that trend?

Hon. N. Sharma: So 2020, which is our last kind of view with this, is an exceptional year because of COVID. We did see an increase in mail-in ballots during that time period, but we don’t know — right? — if that’s going to be…. So I think it wouldn’t be that we’re promoting one way of voting over the other. We’re trying to make all voting accessible and available to people in general. And of course, we’re always hopeful that more people will vote if you do that.

A lot of the provisions that we will go through are from what we learned about the mail-in ballot process to make it better because it was new. So much was new during 2020 because of the COVID experience and people using that way to vote.

[3:25 p.m.]

It’s hard to know. I think our position, like I mentioned, is to promote all types of voting, including…. There are some provisions in here for people that have mobility issues, actually making it easier for them.

M. de Jong: Any lessons or info that the Attorney, in the context of the mail-in ballot conversation, can reveal or share with the committee about the more recent by-election experiences in terms of percentages of vote that arrived? Now again, by-elections are different than general elections, and their participation rates are even worse. I’ll use that term purposely. Any initial data or lessons in terms of the prevalence of mail-in ballots in the by-election experiences?

Hon. N. Sharma: As noted before, by-elections are not a good source of data on trends and uses for voting because generally the overall voting is low in a by-election, unfortunately. The office of the Chief Electoral Officer indicated that the uptake of mail-in ballots in the by-elections was low, and that’s the information that I have.

M. de Jong: I wonder. The Attorney does not have to answer this now, but since we are apparently being closely monitored in these discussions, I will take advantage of the opportunity to send a message via the Attorney to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. It would be actually useful to get a summary. I think we may have a summary of the mail-in ballot experience — I’m pretty sure we do — for the 2020 general election.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

It would be interesting to know whether or not in the by-election context the use of the mail-in ballot as a percentage of overall votes cast returned to traditional levels for by-elections and general elections. So if the office of the Chief Electoral Officer might be in a position to prepare a short summary, that would be useful. I won’t, unless she wants to, ask the Attorney to respond to that. I will ask her to briefly advise whether there is any significance to the replacement of the term “secrecy envelope” with the term “secrecy enclosure.”

Hon. N. Sharma: This is a practical change. Secrecy envelope is a folded ballot, I guess, instead of an envelope. It’s cheaper to produce and easier to process in terms of counting. So it’s just a new way of supporting the process that way.

M. de Jong: I am much relieved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I meant secrecy enclosure. Sorry.

M. de Jong: Now I’m even more relieved.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

M. de Jong: This is the provision, section 28 of the Election Act, which presently says, “Within 8 days after an election is called, the chief electoral officer must publish…” a notice of election. I just wondered. If we change that, as is proposed here, to “as soon as possible….”

[3:30 p.m.]

There was nothing under the existing provisions that precluded the notice from going out on day 2 or day 3 or day 4. One is automatically inclined to think that what the Chief Electoral Officer is looking for here is some flexibility that would mean the notice might not go out till day 9, 10 or 11.

I’m just curious to know, in this day and age of technology and the means, the idea of the formal notice being delayed into the second and, maybe, third week is difficult to understand. First of all, that doesn’t strike me as being a very good thing. Two, why would that be necessary? What accounts for the concern that notice couldn’t go out in the first eight days?

Hon. N. Sharma: This is very particular. The wording of the clause, “as soon as possible,” would still indicate…. Depending on the platform or media source, “as soon as possible,” would be different. For example, a digital platform could go up very quickly.

The particular change is related to a concern that it’s increasingly challenging to publish newspaper ads in affected electoral districts within a specified time frame. So with respect to publishing in newspapers, it allows the Chief Electoral Officer to still have the requirement of “as soon as possible,” but deliver it, sometimes, in a time frame that depends on the publishing dates of the particular newspaper.

M. de Jong: Right, okay. I think I understand the part about different platforms and different means of posting the notice. I don’t think many of us go to the post office anymore to read what’s on the wall, but there is still a provision for that within the act.

I’ll simply register the observation that, in this day and age, with an agency dedicated to and geared entirely to preparation and administration, administering the electoral process, that once the writ is dropped, it should be possible to accommodate the statutory requirements for notice within eight days. One hopes that this change is not going to result in delays that extend beyond those eight days.

Just one other question with respect to….

The Chair: On clause 5.

M. de Jong: Yeah, we’re on clause 5. Actually, that’s fine on clause 5.

Clauses 5 and 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. de Jong: Let me just cross-reference here to 41, which is being amended here. In Bill 11, clause 7…. As I understand it, sub 3(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) are essentially restatements of existing provisions. If that’s not the case, I’m happy to hear it. But when I did the comparison, I thought they were.

Then we have sub 3(b). Is this the new provision? If it is, how is it intended to work? And with particular emphasis, a site-based voting area, which is established under section 80…. I went to subsection 80(4), which allows the Chief Electoral Officer to establish site-based voting areas for the purposes of section 77, which you then have to cross-reference.

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m trying to ascertain whether (b) is the new provision. Then we’re talking about applicants who reside “in a residence that is in a site-based voting area….” What’s an example of that?

Two questions. Is this the new provision of the section, and if it is, then what is an example of a site-based voting area where an applicant would reside?

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question: a residential care facility is an example.

M. de Jong: That residential care would qualify by virtue of falling within the definition of the existing subsection 77(1) of the Election Act. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s to be considered in connection with section 77. The district electoral officer can establish site-based voting areas, and it’s tied to the residence of that person.

[3:40 p.m.]

In your example of how the residential care facility would be established as one, it is through the district electoral officer, who can establish that as a site-based voting opportunity for the resident of that facility.

M. de Jong: Understood and thank you. I guess part of our task, when we get into these kinds of provisions, is to try and contemplate where a difficulty might arise. So this next question falls into that category.

What I think has happened with sub (b) is in the case of a residence site-based voting area, a residential care facility. The verification document requirement, I’ll call them, is different than in other circumstances where, generally, two documents are required, one of which contains a name but also a residential address. In this provision, there’s only a requirement for one document of a type authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer, and that document only needs to contain the applicant’s name.

All right, 99.9 percent of the time — I get it. That makes sense. There’s a site-based voting opportunity at Smith Manor residential care facility. The residents are able to vote. That’s all a good thing.

What happens if someone shows up…? We’re talking about Elections B.C. volunteers. They’re not residents. They don’t live there. They don’t know who the residents are. Someone shows up, pulls out a document with their name on it and says: “I’m here to vote.” But they’re not a resident. What authority does the volunteer at that election table have to say: “I’m sorry. You’re not able to vote”? They say: “Well, it’s a site-based voting area, and here I am. I’d like to cast my ballot.”

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Here’s the process. What would happen is once the district electoral officer has identified a site-based voting opportunity — we’ll say a residential care home — before the voting date, the district electoral officer’s team will go in and verify with, say, the managers or the staff of the residential care facility who is a resident of that site-based voting opportunity.

That list will be verified beforehand. Then, on the example that the member provided, where a volunteer comes or somebody comes on the day of voting, there’ll be a list there that says: “Here’s a list of all the residents.” The person that is voting will show something with their name on it — not necessarily a picture or any address — and then be able to verify that they’re on that list.

If there are any questions, then there’s a process for verifying whether or not — just like in any other case of question marks of identity for that individual….

M. de Jong: To be clear and to be fair, all of that is relevant if someone is not registered and on the voting list; if they’re on the voting list already, not an issue because they’re already there. The mechanism by which verification would take place is helpful to know. I appreciate the answer, and let’s carry on to clause 8, then.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: A quick question on 8(5). What’s the problem being addressed here? It’s always interesting to see reference to the Interpretation Act in the context of when someone can drop off their ballots and when someone is obliged to accept them. Was there an issue around that that this is intended to address?

Hon. N. Sharma: It was a very particular matter that was meant to be corrected from this provision.

During the 2020 general election, the CEO issued an order for voting packages to be dropped off at Service B.C. locations, but the final voting day was on a Saturday, and the Service B.C. location was closed on that day. There were provisions in the Interpretation Act and the Election Act that would require these locations to accept packages dropped off at Service B.C. locations on the first day of business following the Saturday deadline. That would be Monday after the election.

What this does is to bring clarity to exactly that issue, with respect to collecting mail-in packages outside the location’s regular office hours.

Clauses 8 and 9 approved.

On clause 10.

M. de Jong: We’ll take a couple of minutes on this, because it’s an issue that has engaged our attention. I anticipate that my colleague from Saanich North, the Third Party House Leader, either in the context of clause 10 or clause 12, I think, has some interest in these matters as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

I indicated to the Attorney before these proceedings that I would try to make my arguments on this issue with respect to clause 10 and not repeat them in clause 12. And I think 24 is the other clause where the issue presents itself again. I’ll summarize the issue and the concern. I’ll ask the Attorney to what extent, if at all, she shares the concern.

I somewhat anticipated what the response might be and can alert the Attorney and the committee to the possibility of presenting a short amendment that would address the concern of the official opposition in this regard.

The issue here, and I understand that there is an attempt here by the Chief Electoral Officer and by the government to resolve some ambiguity and some uncertainty that arose around the general issue of write-in ballots. And we talked about that earlier — that not all mail-in ballots are write-in ballots. Many are not, but there is a ballot that a voter is obliged to write in their voter preference.

I’ve already acknowledged that very troubling trend that has been going on for some decades now about a lack of voter participation. I think that is troubling for any of us, all of us, who are involved in the democratic process and should be of concern to all British Columbians and all Canadians. We are endeavouring, I think, over the course of many years now, to take steps to try and reverse that trend, and a lot of that reveals itself with efforts to make it easier to vote.

We have more advance polling days. We don’t all have to vote on election day. We just talked about mail-in ballots and the ability to vote from home and various locations and special locations — all as a means of trying to minimize the inconvenience and the effort that people need to make to cast their ballot in this important democratic exercise. I’m all for that, and I don’t want to dissuade those efforts.

But there is another consideration that I think we can’t entirely lose sight of, and that is asking of the voter that they turn their mind, for a moment at least, to making an informed choice and cast that ballot, that vote, responsibly. And knowing who they’re voting for seems to me to be a not unreasonable request.

Now, historically we have acknowledged that in identifying what a person’s voting intent is…. If they, obviously, write in the name of the candidate in a form that is legible and can be clearly identified as being the candidate, that obviously qualifies. We’ve gone a bit further and said: “Okay. Well, some people may not know who the specific candidate is, but they know the party that they want to vote for.”

In fact, on a regular ballot, we identify a candidate and the party. So on a regular ballot, you can see it’s Bob Smith of the New Democratic Party or Mary Bloggs of the B.C. Liberal Party or Janet Jones of the B.C. Green Party. Both that information….

[3:55 p.m.]

I can see the logic in saying in a write-in ballot: “All right. If you can take one of those two bits of information, the name of the candidate or the party, and you can write that in….” Then the Chief Electoral Officer or the district electoral officers will say, “I have a clear sense of who you intend to vote for,” and that vote should be counted.

This section and two other sections purport to go further, though, and provide a third option. And that is to write in the name of the leader of a party, a leader who is not likely running in that constituency. Now, there will be one constituency that they’re running in, for which that name would qualify as the name of the candidate. But in the other 90-plus constituencies, that person is not running there.

It seems to be signalling a shift, and some might say a recognition, of leader-driven politics, but that’s not our electoral system. We could create it if we wanted to. If that’s what we wanted to do, we could do a radical overhaul of our electoral system, and people could vote for the leaders of the parties and then fill in from there. But we don’t do that. We vote for local representatives and, by extension, local representatives who also represent political parties.

This, I think, is going a step further, and I understand that there is judicial consideration that is being taken into account here, but we’re allowed to disagree with that from time to time. I think it is a mistake, and I will go further. This will operate, I’m sure, in different ways at different times in different elections, but I think it bestows an unfair advantage.

It can bestow an unfair advantage on various parties in different ways at different times, depending on people’s familiarity with the leader of that party. I guess Premiers generally would have an advantage in terms of name recognition. That’s true, but it wouldn’t always be the case, in the case of a new leader or a new Premier.

All to say that the official opposition has no difficulty with the notion that a ballot should be counted and accepted as revealing the voter’s intent, where a write-in ballot names the candidate or names the political party that the voter wishes to support in their constituency.

But we are less supportive and, in fact, somewhat concerned that we would add that third option as an incremental movement down the path towards a form of leader-driven political identification and politics at election time that the rest of our electoral system does not embrace, does not represent. If that’s where we want to go, then that’s another discussion to have.

I’ll ask the Attorney General the degree to which she either shares my concern or doesn’t, and then, if she doesn’t, maybe what I’ll do is put my amendment on the floor, and that can be the subject of further discussion in the committee.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by clearly saying that this is by no means a shift in how we perceive elections or, as the member put it, a creep into leader-style elections. It actually was designed with the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer and the situations that were showing up. The member mentioned one that involved a judicial recount. That’s meant to remedy a very specific situation. I just wanted to spend some time to walk through that.

[4:05 p.m.]

For example, we’ve already established that a mail-in ballot that is not an ordinary ballot with the list of all the candidates is only available in exceptional circumstances where their nomination has not been closed in that riding. In some circumstances, for example, one party may not have nominated an actual candidate in that riding. So the decision is to issue a write-in ballot for that particular voting at the time.

With the 2019 changes to the electoral process, which will be showing up at the next election…. The model that was already in place was a vote anywhere model. You could go to any place and vote. There will be on-site ballot printers. What that means is that when you show up, somebody can print you an ordinary ballot that lists all the candidates.

The clear issue that we were trying to remedy with this change is really about a situation where the nomination hasn’t closed and the decision was to send a write-in ballot. In that circumstance, what has shown up in a digital recount at the last election is….

It starts by the idea that we always want to try to capture voter intention, right? As the member mentioned, our goal is to have as many people voting as possible and as many ballots that are valid counted as possible, as long as there’s a clear voter intention. In that scenario, what happened was that somebody wrote the name of their party and the leader. They wrote the leader and the party. Because of the way the legislation is structured right now, that ballot had to be not counted, because it named the leader and the party.

This is actually just trying to fix that situation where we would say it’s unfair to that voter, who clearly expressed their intention in a situation where the nomination process was not finished in their riding. It’s a very particular amendment that helps us make sure that we’re being fair to the voters and their intention.

M. de Jong: The Attorney’s explanation or rationale doesn’t surprise me, and I didn’t harbour any great hope that I was going to persuade her otherwise.

I think this is a case where there is a disagreement. Where the Attorney says the intention is not to further enhance the notion of leader-driven politics or an electoral process that focuses on party leaders as opposed to local candidates, I think there is a group of us who believe that even if that’s not the intention, that is going to be the result.

The Attorney’s partial answer is: “And besides, this will only happen very rarely.” All right, we’ll get to sections later where I’ll talk about my own electoral experience and the difference a couple of votes can make to one’s life and political destiny. So I’m not sure that I place a great deal of stock in the notion that it doesn’t happen that often.

I don’t think it is unreasonable, in the electoral system that we have, to say to a voter: “You should know the name of the person you’re voting for. We’ll make allowance for the fact that you might not, by allowing you to write in the name of the party, and the candidate for that party will get the benefit of your vote.”

But to say, “All we will require from you is the name of the leader, whose name you have seen, probably repeatedly, on the newscasts, and that will be sufficient to identify for us your intention,” and someone else entirely will receive the benefit of that — that is, the local candidate — is a step that the official opposition is hesitant to take.

The amendment I’ll table — I have a copy for the Attorney as well — simply deletes the phrase “or leader of the registered political party of the candidate.” So that’s what it does.

I think, having taken some time to make my argument and alert the Attorney and the committee to the concerns of the official opposition, what I’ll do is invite any initial response. I know there are members and the House Leader for the Third Party that have some thoughts and submissions on the point as well.

The Chair: We are going to take a short recess to distribute the amendment.

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order, and the amendment is in order.

I’d like to recognize the member from Abbotsford West to move the motion.

M. de Jong: I’ll simply move the amendment.

[CLAUSE 10, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

10 Section 86 (5) is repealed and the following substituted:

(5) Write-in ballots must be prepared in the form prescribed by regulation to permit the voter to vote by writing in the name of the candidate, or registered political party of the candidate or leader of the registered political party of the candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote.]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: Speaking to the amendment, I appreciate the member from the official opposition for raising it. It’s a concern that we also share in the Third Party, and I think that it’s a concern, actually, that should be shared across all parts of this House.

I want to read into the record from page 58 of the judicial recount from the 2020 provincial election in the electoral district of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. There was a judicial recount there. Section 209 of this reads the following:

“Elections B.C. noted, properly, that in our Westminster parliamentary system, voters are not voting as one would for a president in a republic, in a single national election. Instead, a voter votes for their local representative in the Legislature; those members in turn may decide to change the leader of their caucus or of the Legislature. There are 87 separate elections in British Columbia, one for each electoral district, rather than a single election. In this context, a voter may well vote based on the individual rather than the party, and a vote for an individual candidate in the mistaken belief that he or she is running in the voter’s electoral district should not automatically transfer the vote to the actual candidate for that party in the electoral district.”

It appears that what happened here is that during this judicial recount that happened, Elections B.C. came to the table with this advice to the judge that was taking a look at this. It should be noted that it was the position that was taken by the Third Party, the B.C. Green Party, as well, that any ballot that had the leader’s name written on it should just be outright rejected. It did not have either the party or the candidate that was running in that election.

I used the example, when I was speaking at second reading to this bill, of the situation that occurred in my riding where, actually, the situation that the Attorney General outlined occurred. It took the government, who called the election, a couple of weeks in order to locate a candidate to represent them in that election. For the first couple of weeks of that snap election, there was a proliferation of the Premier’s signs in my riding showing up all over the place, presumably to take the place of the candidate that had yet to be determined. Even after the candidate had been determined, perhaps they took the place of the candidate who wasn’t able to get their signs printed early in the writ.

It served a couple of purposes. There’s no doubt that at that time, the Premier, the leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, was very popular. So from that perspective, you can understand why it would be that a political party that has a popular Premier would want to do that. But another outcome of that was that it was terribly confusing for the electorate. Even people who had been paying close attention to what was going on, noting…. I live in the capital region. My riding is in the capital region. It’s neighbouring to Langford–Juan de Fuca. People were legiti­mately confused about what was happening.

[4:25 p.m.]

Did the Premier, at the time, move to Saanich North and the Islands, and was he running in Saanich North and the Islands? Frankly, at that time, that was a confusion that I spent little time, at that point, concerned about. My concern was letting people know who I was and who I was encouraging them to vote for. At that point, it wasn’t the Premier.

But you know, I think what is happening here is that we are, indeed, creeping towards a scenario where we are elevating the leader into a role they don’t have any business being in — more of a presidential role than the one they play. There is no doubt that the most popular name in politics will always be, or will soon be, the person who is the Premier that we hear about and know who that person is. That is giving an advantage. It is, indeed, actually stepping outside, as Elections B.C. noted in the judicial recount, the parliamentary system of government that we have established in this province.

When I first began to look at whether or not I wanted to move from local government to the provincial government and maybe run as an MLA, one of the first things that I considered was the potential of running as an independent. I was curious about that. So I started to look into what that would mean.

I learned that over the decades — despite the system that we have, with 87 or whatever the number of ridings there are elections that are held on election day in B.C. — it had become more and more difficult to even run in this province without being a member of a political party.

There was a time in this province where political parties didn’t exist. We now have the creeping profile of the political party. I understand, and I’m not arguing against, having the political party as one of the options on the ballot. But just as that has crept into our system, I think this is now the next stage of this, which is to basically fold all of the elections under one name.

We see the name of every political leader on every sign across the province as part of the team of this individual, whichever leader it is. I’m going to — absolutely, and I think with no hesitation — be supporting this amendment because, frankly, it’s the right thing to do. I’m quite disappointed that the government has brought this amendment to include the leader’s name on a ballot anywhere in the province as an acceptable replacement to the actual person who will be representing, the actual person who will be on the other end of the emails, who will be serving the constituency in that particular riding.

What I’ve experienced is that constituents that I have who write to the Premier, who write to the leader of the political party that is in power, very rarely do they get a response back. It is always going to be the constituency MLA, the MLA that is part of that constituency. That is who their representative is. That’s who is responsible for those constituents. As much as possible, I think we need to guard and defend that relationship that the voter has — the citizen, the constituent has — with their member of this Legislature.

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to thank the member for proposing the amendment and also the House Leader of the Third Party for the words. We won’t be able to support the amendment today, and I’ve outlined the reasons before. I just want to say that I agree with the belief in the values of local decision-making and local representation that were expressed today.

The changes we’re making to the Election Act under this bill were recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and independent of us. The reasons for it are very exceptional circumstances.

[4:30 p.m.]

We put this amendment in the context of a declining use of a write-in ballot and better technology and better availability for printing off an ordinary ballot, which will do what the member suggests, listing off the candidates and the party.

In the exceptional circumstance of a write-in ballot…. So we’re already in the category of a situation where there are not nominated candidates, so the nomination process has not been finished in that riding, and the decision has been to send in written ballots. And then I think the judicial guidance and certainly the Chief Electoral guidance is that you, and I share this view, should be driven by voter intent in those exceptional circumstances.

The vast majority of ballots are going to be ordinary ballots that list exactly who the candidates are in their party. And that’s increasing, as I mentioned before, because we will actually have printers at stations that can print ordinary ballots on call. So we’re strengthening the process of that. But in these exceptional circumstances, my view is that voter intent should be analyzed.

If a voter in the circumstance that the judge decided on, where they wrote in the name of the leader and the party, the fact that that was rejected because the leader’s name was there would be probably shocking to that individual, right? They felt that in a situation where they were meant to write in something, because they didn’t have nominated candidates in that riding and they wrote in the leader of the party, that their voter intent would be rejected and their vote not be counted.

The reason for those amendments are squarely in this category and are supported not only by the Chief Electoral Officer but guidance we’ve also gotten from courts on mail-in ballots when it comes to voter intent. So for those reasons, I don’t support the amendments.

The Chair: Seeing no further comments, the question is on the amendment provided by the member for Abbotsford West.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10 approved on division.

Clause 11 approved.

The Chair: Shall clause 12 pass?

Sorry, member for Abbotsford West.

On clause 12.

M. de Jong: No need to be sorry till you hear what I have to say, Madam Chair.

Well, look, I had indicated to the Attorney and to the committee the issue that the member for Saanich North and I have spoken to, and the Attorney for that matter, reveals itself in clause 10, clause 12 and, I believe, clause 24. I don’t intend to repeat all of the arguments that I have advanced in support of my amendment that has just been defeated on clause 10.

I do, however, wish to table a similar amendment with respect to clause 12, which seeks to eliminate what would be sub 2(c), the reference to the name of the leader of the registered political party of a candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote. I have provided that in written form. I think the table has had an opportunity to make copies of it. I hope members that require a copy have it.

Suffice to say it is advanced to accomplish the same purpose and for the same reasons as the amendment that was proposed with respect to clause 10. And I so move that amendment.

[CLAUSE 12, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

12 Section 91 (2) is repealed and the following substituted:

(2) In the case of a write-in ballot, an individual votes by writing in the blank space provided on the ballot

(a) the name of the candidate for whom the voter wishes to vote,

(b) the name of the registered political party of the candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote, or

(c) the name of the leader of the registered political party of a candidate for whom the individual wishes to vote.]

On the amendment.

[4:35 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for Abbotsford West for the further opportunity, I guess, just to raise the point that I still support the initiative that was started a few minutes ago. I still support it to remove the option of putting the leader’s name.

[4:40 p.m.]

I think it’s important to highlight what was said by Elections B.C. in the judicial recount, and that was that “a voter votes for their local representative in the Legislature. Those members, in turn, may decide to change the leader of their caucus or of the Legislature.” That could happen at any time in the electoral process. In fact, the electoral process is a challenging time, and lots of things can happen and can play out.

The idea of voter intent, as the Attorney General outlined…. I guess the challenge I have with that is that when you’re putting another individual’s name down, it’s different than putting a political party down. There is a difference in that. I think it’s important to acknowledge that. Again, Elections B.C. highlighted in the judicial recount the reality that that voter could very well be intending on voting for the New Democrat Party, could be putting the name of the leader of the New Democratic Party in the ballot instead of the NDP, and then that individual is no longer the leader of that political party when the election day rolls around.

Again, we’re talking about, as the Attorney General pointed out, a rather nuanced and declining situation. Here’s another situation that is fairly nuanced and may only happen once, but the reality is that we have to take this into consideration: that on that election day, that voter’s intention will no longer be available, will not be an option because of the unlikely scenario that that leader is no longer the leader of the political party at the time that the election is held.

The reality is that if it’s about voter intention, then we need to be clear to the voters. “Write the name of your local candidate, and if there is no local candidate, then write the name of the political party that you are most closely affiliated or aligned with that you’d like to see have the representative in that area.” Other than that, for the sake of judicial recounts and for the sake of clarity, I think that’s where we need to end it. And that’s the reason why I’m supporting this amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to say I also appreciate, again, the intent and the discussion that we’re having here today. But for similar reasons, as I mentioned for the previous amendment, I don’t support these amendments.

[4:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I call the vote on the amendment to clause 12, put forward by the member for Abbotsford West.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12 approved on division.

On clause 13.

M. de Jong: Two things here, clause 13 and clause 14. My understanding is that 13 refers to…. I’m going to call it an original mail-in ballot. And then clause 14 refers to a replacement, an application for a replacement in the event that the original has been lost or otherwise been disfigured or is no longer useable.

But if I’m correct in that, then maybe the more important question is: is this a product of a challenge that emerged in the 2020 election? My understanding is that. And if it is, does…? The language in the section suggests that it will be left entirely to the Chief Electoral Officer or district electoral officer to determine when there is insufficient time to forward either an original ballot package or a replacement mail-in ballot package. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: This proposed amendment is consequential to the introduction of the authorized drop-off locations, which I think, as the member was talking about…. It provides election officials to continue to have clear authority to not provide a package if there’s no point in doing so. So it would be beyond the timeline of the election to provide it.

M. de Jong: Right. Okay, I understand, but, I mean, the language….

So the two officers are not required to provide a mail-in voting package if they deem there’s insufficient time for the mail-in voting package to be received. What does that translate into, practically? For example, an application…. What drives that? Is it…?

If someone submits an application for them to have a mail-in ballot package mailed to them one day before the final day for returning it, that would suggest that’s not going to happen. If, however, they were to turn up at the district returning office and say: “Can I have…?” They could presumably do that up to a few hours before the end of voting or certainly the day before voting.

I feel like asking: what goes into the consideration? The short answer seems to be whatever the district electoral officer or Chief Electoral Officer decide goes into that consideration. So that’s what I’m seeking confirmation for. It is entirely up to those officials as to what they determine to be sufficient or insufficient time.

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll just start by saying that this is not a new authority. It’s authority that’s already existed. And it is discretionary, as the member suggests, but it is bound by a consideration of insufficient time for the mail-in package. So that, obviously, is a consideration that they must view in that particular request.

Like, for example, if the request was for a mail-in ballot a few days before election for an international voting opportunity, then obviously that wouldn’t make it in the time for the election. So it is discretionary in a broad sense but also bound by the idea that it’s insufficient time — right? — for the mail-in package to be received. And it’s in the context of all the other opportunities to vote for that individual.

[4:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Can a person attend at a district returning office and pick up a mail-in voting package?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, they can. It’s rarely declined, I’m told, in practice. Also, if somebody comes in to request a mail-in ballot on site, they can receive it. I mentioned before about the on-site printing opportunity that we have as well, with ballots.

M. de Jong: With the added provision now, the confirmed authority for, whatever we called it, a defined term in section 1, the “authorized drop-off location”…. Is the intention here, practically, that someone, a day before the final…?

We have advance polling. Then there’s usually a bit of a gap, and then we have the final polling day. If someone doesn’t vote in the advance poll because they assume they’re going to be here for the main polling day and then discovers, at the last minute, that they’re going to be called out of town…. They haven’t voted in the advance poll. They can’t vote on election day.

Will this operate in a way that allows them, the day before election day, to attend at a district returning office, get a mail-in package and then immediately drop it off?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, that’s the idea: to provide as many voting opportunities as possible. In the scenario described by the member, that mail-in ballot could be picked up. Then, obviously…. We now have, if this passes, expanded places for that mail-in ballot to be dropped off.

Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On clause 16.

M. de Jong: Clause 16 amends section 106 of the existing Election Act and, obviously, speaks of…. Sorry, it amends section 107 of the Election Act.

I’m going to use this as a surrogate to ask a question that a number of people have asked me, in terms of the receipt of mail-in voting packages, rooted in the knowledge that the incidence of mail-in ballots…. We’ll discover whether they continue to rise or whether 2020 was an anomaly for reasons that we are all familiar with.

The question is this. This is a section that relates to the receipt of a mail-in voting package. This might be a question that is of more interest to those who are directly involved in electoral contests than the general public, but I’ll ask it anyway.

Over the years, in terms of reporting the results of an election…. We have voting districts, constituencies, and then, within them, we have polling districts, polling divisions. I can’t even remember what the term is — polling districts. Depending on the size, there can be hundreds of them in some constituencies.

It’s a breakdown. I’m not sure most people know which numbered poll they’re in, but it does guide them to where they vote. It’s kind of an organizational subdivision. Political organizations, though, tend to place a fair bit of stock in that as a way of tracking who is doing what, where.

In the past, people have received those breakdowns. Then, somewhere at the bottom of the table, is the one that says mail-in ballots. Historically the number has been quite low, and it gets added in there.

[4:55 p.m.]

If the number of mail-in ballots grows, and 2020 was an example of how it could, can the Attorney advise, with the assistance of perhaps advice from Elections B.C.: are mail-in ballots assigned to a poll? Does the capacity exist, upon receipt of a mail-in ballot, to assign them to a poll?

They should have an address. I mean, the voter has to establish that they are qualified to vote in that constituency. So they have to have an address in that constituency. Are they assigned…? Are there challenges associated with assigning that vote to a poll in the way that other ballots are assigned to a poll in an election?

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay, a three-part answer.

There’s no requirement, under the Election Act, for the voting area to be tied to the mail-in ballots, in terms of the residence of the voters. The CEO does have the authority, under section 121, to do that, to tie the mail-in ballots in with the…. I think the term used in the act is “voting area.” So polling district, to the member’s language.

However, Elections B.C. has advised…. It would add considerable operational complexity to count mail-in ballots by voting area and could delay the preparation and delivery of packages to voters or the initial and final counts. So their operational decision has been not to use the power given to them to do that.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask the Attorney: does she have any views on whether it would be advisable for mail-in ballots to be tabulated in accordance with the voting area, or polling area, that the voter resides in? I will say that I am, via this discussion and those who are monitoring, making the pitch for why I think that might be a worthwhile thing to do.

Does the Attorney have any position she would share on the wisdom of ensuring that mail-in ballots, like every other ballot, are assigned to a polling area within a constituency?

Hon. N. Sharma: In terms of my personal view on it, I would say…. I take the guidance of the Chief Electoral Officer in terms of the impracticability of administering such a system.

My personal view is that like the contents of this bill, we need to make it as…. We need to direct our resources towards making voting as easy and accessible as possible, in many different ways. I would prefer that Elections B.C. and the Chief Electoral Officer focus our resources on that, rather than, potentially, the operational expenses and administration challenges of fulfilling that request.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Thank you to the Attorney.

Insofar as other members of the committee may have views on this that they wish to communicate to the Chief Electoral Officer, I presume they are free to do so and may wish to engage the Chief Electoral Officer when he next appears, for example, before the Public Accounts or budgetary committees to explore to what degree it is practicable or possible to do so.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Clause 16 approved.

On clause 17.

M. de Jong: When would this particular provision…? We’re in sub 108(4). I mean, 108 deals with special provisions for mail-in voting packages for armed forces and others. Sub 108(4), which is amended here, is a specific exception to what is already an exception. When would this be used?

Hon. N. Sharma: This is specifically related to the real life circumstances when it comes to armed forces. Just to give a practical example of how this would show up. Normally speaking, before the amendments, you would have to provide a photocopy of your ID along with the package of a mail-in ballot. What this allows is for the election officials — for example, if you’re on a naval ship — that are appointed to verify ID in different ways, specifically for mail-in ballots for this group of people.

[5:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Yeah, I got the Canadian Forces example. Any other circumstances that the Attorney can think of that would give rise to using this as a tool for verification or identification?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think the member is talking about the section in 108 that talks about any other specific class of individuals.

We’ve just verified with the team at the Chief Electoral Officer’s office that they’re not aware of any other groups that would be in that category that have been used today.

Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On clause 20.

M. de Jong: We’re now at clause 109.01 of the act. This relates to individuals who need assistance. I won’t try to describe all of the circumstances applicable to that. My question is this, with respect to the proposed (b.1) amendment where it says, “write the individual’s name on the certification envelope of the voter’s mail-in voting package”: whose name? Is it the name of the voter, or the name of the person assisting the voter?

Hon. N. Sharma: The individual of the person who is assisting the voter.

Clauses 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On clause 24.

M. de Jong: This takes us to 24 and represents the final provision of Bill 11 that references the change around explicitly authorizing the use of a party leader’s name as a way to determine voter intent.

I have made the arguments on behalf of the official opposition for why we believe that is ultimately a mistake.

I have presented the table with a copy of my proposed amendment to clause 24, which in effect deletes sub (b) in its entirety, which is a provision that includes the reference to a party leader’s name. I will move that amendment and ask that it be distributed.

The Chair: The amendment has been distributed, and it’s in order. So we’re speaking to the amendment.

[5:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong: I will move the amendment and direct the Attorney’s and committee’s attention to the comments I made previously with respect to similar amendments in clauses 10 and 12.

[CLAUSE 24, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

24 Section 123 is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by adding the following paragraph:

(h) the ballot is a write-in ballot marked for both a registered political party and the leader of the registered political party, but the name of the person on the ballot is not the name of the leader of the registered political party. , and

(b) in subsection (3) by adding the following paragraphs:

(b.1) the name of the leader of a registered political party marked in accordance with section 91 (2);

(d) an indication of the name of the leader of the registered political party of the candidate marked on the ballot in accordance with section 91 (2) that, although misspelled or abbreviated, clearly indicates the intention of the voter.]

On the amendment.

Hon. N. Sharma: For the reasons that we stated previously for the other amendments moved by this member, we don’t support the amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 24 approved on division.

Clauses 25 to 30 inclusive approved.

On clause 31.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: Powell River should keep his groans to himself or at least extend the courtesy of listening to what I say before groaning.

Well, look. There is, I think, a relevant question for the Attorney about clause 31. That is: is there a substantive change to the basis for requesting a recount in a close election? Or is it still an automatic entitlement if the result is within 100 votes?

I will confess to taking a certain measure of pride in this provision since it was the result of the circumstances that led to my arrival in this place. But be that as it may, is there any substantive change that, in effect, says a candidate has an automatic right to a recount in circumstances where the difference between first and second is less than 100 votes?

Hon. N. Sharma: No, it’s not a substantive change. It’s more of a correction. It clarifies that no candidate is declared elected until after the final count.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Sharma: What I said was no candidate is declared elected until after the final count.

Clauses 31 to 35 inclusive approved.

On clause 36.

M. de Jong: I just wanted to make sure that I and others on the committee properly understood the significance of the changes being contemplated by the amendments to section 231. Are we…?

[5:15 p.m.]

Let’s put this in practical terms. We are all familiar with the notion of an election sign and an election pamphlet and the obligation that those materials include certain contact information for a financial agent or a sponsor. Is the upshot of the changes in 36 simply to say: “Whilst heretofore that had to be a phone number contact, we, Elections B.C., will now recognize an email as a sufficient form of contact”?

This is my way of asking…. The intent here, it seems to me, has not changed in terms of providing contact information. The form that that contact information can take has changed or been expanded. Is that about the size of it?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: Then in sub (e) of that same clause 36, there is the added provision: must meet “any form and content requirements established by the chief electoral officer by regulation.” Doesn’t the Chief Electoral Officer already have that authority?

Hon. N. Sharma: No. It doesn’t clearly, as the act is prior to these, if these amendments pass, give the Chief Electoral Officer that authority. Subsection (e) would just clarify or make it easier. If there are evolving ways of displaying the correct specifics of contact information, that could adapt over time.

Clauses 36 and 37 approved.

On clause 38.

M. de Jong: On clause 38, the Attorney and the government are purporting to create, on behalf of the Chief Electoral Officer and the chief electoral office, I take it, a new tool for use by that office in certain circumstances. Can the Attorney take a moment and describe for the committee the circumstances that have emerged that gave rise to the request and the government’s decision to create this new tool and the circumstances in which it is intended to be used and how used?

Hon. N. Sharma: The objective of this section is to give the CEO clear authority, that’s supported by the most serious penalty in the act, to require digital platforms to take necessary steps to remove non-compliant election advertising. Obviously, it also serves the goal of transparency.

M. de Jong: Is it a complaints-driven process?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s both the Chief Electoral Officer and the team monitoring and also complaint driven.

[5:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: That monitoring function, it strikes me, could be pretty onerous insofar as the plethora of different vehicles and avenues for advertising around elections is. Has the Attorney secured, from the Chief Electoral Officer, some indication as to what fully monitoring all of that activity is going to involve, in terms of resources for that office?

Hon. N. Sharma: To start with, they already monitor and oversee third-party advertising as part of their role. What this addition will do is give them powers of takedown and penalties to enforce that. The assurance that we’re getting is that they wouldn’t be asking also for powers they weren’t able to do. This is complementary to tools they already have, in overseeing third-party advertising and advertising that’s noncompliant, and it gives them a better ability to take them down and penalize.

M. de Jong: It sounds like the Attorney is advising the committee that even today there is a division within the Elections B.C. office that is monitoring advertising in both election periods and pre-campaign periods, and monitoring that to determine compliance with the provisions of the act. Is that the case? Is there a separate division? Are there people assigned within Elections B.C. to the task of monitoring the advertising that would be captured by the provisions of clause 38?

Hon. N. Sharma: There are many ways today with technology to use…. I’m advised by their office that they have software that helps them to monitor it. In situations where an election is going on, they also have the ability to have third parties be part of the oversight, to add to capacity if that’s needed. But I think they really wanted this to have tools to actually penalize people that are not in compliance.

M. de Jong: Sorry, third parties that assist them in monitoring election-related advertising and communications? That’s interesting. Who would that be?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m advised by their office that there are search companies or, I guess, organizations that specialize in providing this type of monitoring oversight. So if they need to have extra capacity, they can do that.

[5:25 p.m.]

M. de Jong: If a person has purchased election advertising or advertising in the pre-campaign period, is it true, therefore, that that advertisement, that communication, is automatically being monitored by Elections B.C. for compliance? Is that how this works?

Hon. N. Sharma: Elections B.C. already monitors compliance in election advertising. That’s a function they already have. This adds better, clear authority for compliance mechanisms. Also, there’s the complaint-driven side. Political parties and other stakeholders in the election are monitoring that stuff and can bring complaints forward if they see it.

M. de Jong: Right, okay. Well, I understand the part about wanting to secure an enforcement mechanism, and the provisions deal with the Chief Electoral Officer providing notice to take certain measures, stop transmissions and remove.

I, though, am a bit surprised to learn that there is this extensive monitoring capacity in place now. I really did think that some of this, even today, was a complaints-driven process. But it sounds like what the Attorney is saying today is that the capacity to monitor any of the advertising that would be captured under 231 and 231.01 and 231.02, and the subject of enforcement proceedings, already exists, and there won’t be any requirement on the part of Elections B.C. to seek additional resources to perform that function. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: If there are…. First of all, the CEO and that office is tasked with implementing the legislation. That’s clear statutory authority. If there are any issues in staffing or requirements that they might need to do so, then I would expect them to come to the government service committee or talk to us about that. Right now we have assurances that they’re able to fulfil the duties under this act.

M. de Jong: Right, okay. I’m not meaning to belabour this, but it’s sort of a fundamental tenet of what we do here. If someone comes in search of legal authority to do certain things, we tend to want to ask how much that’s going to cost. The advice we’re getting from the Attorney is that it shouldn’t cost anything more because she hasn’t been asked for anything more, as the minister responsible for the act.

I must confess, I was a bit surprised to hear that Elections B.C. has this extensive monitoring capacity now. I guess that’s a good thing. I guess people will be interested to hear, when they take out an ad in support of their favourite candidate or cause, that it’s being monitored by Elections B.C. for compliance. It’s relevant because…. Well, I’ll say it.

[5:30 p.m.]

If the Chief Electoral Officer shows up in a few months and says to the appropriate committee of the House, “Oh, by the way, thanks for passing my legislation. I need an extra 5 million bucks,” then we’d better hear about that now and not as a surprise then. I know they’re monitoring this over at Elections B.C. headquarters, so now is the time to communicate the need for additional resources, not five months from now.

Hon. N. Sharma: One of the things that’s happened in the past, with the 2019 amendments and previous reports, is that sometimes the Chief Electoral Officer reports there is a budgetary consideration of the implications of implementing the recommendations.

In the reports that we are talking about today that led to the changes that we…. There was no such analysis. I’m currently not aware of any budgetary constraints in administering the changes that we’re posing to the act. And of course, it’s the Chief Electoral Officer’s duty to implement. If they do arise, I would fully expect him and his team to come and ask the appropriate government committee for further resources.

M. de Jong: Right. I’ll go one step further, though. And again, I’ll say this politely and with respect. I think the Chief Electoral Officer and the Attorney should anticipate, when bringing forward these provisions, that a logical question from members of the committee is at some point going to be: “And how much does it cost?”

I have the Attorney’s information that, to her knowledge, the Chief Electoral Officer has what he requires to fulfil the obligations and to make use of these provisions. But we’ll file that away, and hopefully, it’s correct. We’ll see what happens down the road.

Let’s just take a moment to…. In terms of the enforcement powers that are being created here, I take it the idea is that the Chief Electoral Officer would have specific statutory authority to order a cessation of transmission of election advertising. Help me with this, though, if the Attorney can.

So there’s the power vis-à-vis the sponsor, the agency that has created and is advancing the advertising. What is the authority that the legislation grants vis-à-vis, for example, the platform, in the case of the Internet or the social media that might be the vehicle by which the advertising is being transmitted?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to add to the previous discussion. Just a reminder that actually the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections B.C. already monitors third-party advertising — that includes on different platforms. What this does is give them a takedown provision or a takedown power, just to help with the discussion of whether they’re able to and the budgetary considerations.

The question is…. It covers social media platforms. To the member’s question, notice can be provided to the sponsor and to the platform of a violation under these sections.

M. de Jong: We had a similar conversation, seems like a little while ago now, with respect to another piece of legislation: intimate images. And, in that case, we were discussing the ability of a tribunal, the CRT or the Provincial Court or the Supreme Court of British Columbia, to have orders enforced. And, I think, at one point, I thought the Attorney provided a very forthright and honest answer about the abilities and sometimes the limitations of having orders from B.C. tribunals enforced internationally — not so much an issue nationally, but sometimes internationally, depending on where the headquarters for a platform are.

In this case, we’re talking about a statutory officer of the B.C. Legislative Assembly, important by any definition. But what can the Attorney offer by way of assurance that having created this power that these platforms will take seriously and feel compelled to abide by a decision, an order, of the Chief Electoral Officer of B.C.?

Hon. N. Sharma: First of all, there’s a penalty in this that’s the highest penalty. It’s up to $50,000 day for non-compliance. Now the reason and the goal of that penalty is to act as a deterrence and also to promote quick action when it comes to the notices.

You’ll be seeing, later on, we’ll be tabling a House amendment that gives the CEO the authority to file that notice within the Supreme Court to make it an order of the Supreme Court and then have all the powers and tools of the Supreme Court when it comes to enforcement.

I expect that the social media platforms that are operating and our citizens of British Columbia are using who publicly talk about wanting to be more responsible and more accountable in terms of their actions and their impacts on our democratic process would take these orders and notices seriously and comply with them. We will do what we can to the extent of the law to enforce them.

M. de Jong: I think it’s fair to say that’s probably all our hope.

I think the concern probably arises…. This is not my attempt to revive a conversation we had earlier in clause 1, but as it was in our conversation around intimate images, the larger concern would relate to enforceability in circumstances where the transmitting platform originates outside of Canada or even Canada and the United States.

[5:40 p.m.]

The argument around the magnitude of penalties and the ability and deterrent effect of sanctions that can be imposed on people located and agencies located right here within B.C., I think, is a sound one. Where we may encounter…. Well, I should ask the Attorney.

Is she concerned at all, notwithstanding our earlier conversation about foreign influence, that those who might seek to influence from afar may not be as concerned about the sanctions that can be brought to bear here within B.C., given that the reach of our electoral officer and, indeed, our courts may not extend far enough to affect them?

Hon. N. Sharma: We are, like every jurisdiction in, I would say, the world, grappling and addressing challenges faced by the impacts of social media and the Internet on our citizens. Our thrust and our goal is to strengthen our legal tools and our justice system to be able to respond to that.

My hope is that the collective actions that jurisdictions like B.C. — we certainly talked about that with the intimate images legislation, and it applies to this as well — are taking to protect their citizens through the legal tools that they have and point directly to these social media platforms for accountability will change the nature of that dynamic and help protect the citizens of the province.

M. de Jong: The provisions also include a mechanism by which, having received notice from the Chief Electoral Officer to cease transmission, an application can be made to extend the period of time referred to, which presumably allows the transmission to continue.

Can the Attorney explain the circumstances that might give rise to a granting of an extension where the Chief Electoral Officer has issued an order? Under what circumstances would an extension be granted to allow that material or that advertising to continue to be transmitted?

Hon. N. Sharma: That provision gives the Chief Electoral Officer, as described, discretion in certain circumstances. One such circumstance is that maybe it’s a smaller platform and they use, let’s say, a third party for their advertising or other things on their site, so it’s not a direct line to take down. In that circumstance, it may be reasonable for the Chief Electoral Officer to give that extension.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: That’s good on 38.

Clause 38 approved.

On clause 39.

M. de Jong: So 39 creates a new section, 234.1, which creates a new power for the Chief Electoral Officer to deal with false statements, misinformation. I’m going to ask the Attorney to put this on the record, because in the public conversation, to the extent that there has been a public conversation about this, it tends to be: “Oh, now the Chief Electoral Officer is going to have a monitoring role and an ability to root out all of the lies and false information that is bandied about during an election campaign.” But it is more limited than that.

I wonder if the Attorney might both summarize the particular areas where the Chief Electoral Officer has an ability to address what he or she believes to be misinformation or false statements; and then secondly: why those areas? Why was it restricted to those areas, alone?

Hon. N. Sharma: In a democracy, and particularly in the time of a campaign, of course there’s a strong role for debate. There’s a strong role for people expressing their different points of view, their perspectives. It’s actually encouraged, and candidates go out there and talk about things. So really, the balance in terms of what’s disinformation and what’s healthy debate is one that we need to strike.

With discussions with the Chief Electoral Officer and analysis of other provisions, what we circled around was criteria or categories of disinformation that are easily verifiable and, unfortunately, have been used in situations with the spread of disinformation to undermine either a candidate or the place of voting.

One category focuses on a candidate. It includes if a candidate themselves says these things, that could be verified: citizenship; place of birth; education; professional qualifications or membership, in a group or association, of a candidate, a nomination contestant or the leader of a registered political party.

We can think of examples where place of birth has been something, particularly in the States. You can think about that, where place of birth has been used to undermine a candidate, along with qualifications or membership in a group or association. That type of disinformation is clearly identified.

With respect to voting, of course the Chief Electoral Officer takes that very seriously — so when disinformation about locations of voting booths, where and when to vote or those kind of things are spread. Unfortunately, there have been examples of that. That’s something that’s very easily verified and needs to be corrected right away.

[5:50 p.m.]

Those are the areas that we step into for disinformation, keeping that balance between debate, what’s verifiable, what’s opinion in mind when we were deciding.

M. de Jong: Is this a complaints-driven process?

Hon. N. Sharma: Similar to the answer before, it’s both. It’s both monitored by the CEO and also complaints-​driven.

M. de Jong: Okay. Well, I’ll explore that a little bit. These are statements about a candidate, a nomination contestant, leader of a registered party, public figure associated with the candidate that allege that one of those people has been charged with an offence or required to pay an administrative monetary penalty. Then, in part (b): “relates to the citizenship, place of birth, education, professional qualifications or membership….”

I’m trying to think of a circumstance in which the office of the Chief Electoral Officer or Elections B.C. would be in a position, through monitoring, to determine on its own whether a false statement had been made about any one of those things. Doesn’t it logically flow that someone has to say to Elections B.C.: “Someone has made an accusation that is not true”?

Hon. N. Sharma: This may be obvious, but I should state it. With respect to locations of voting booths and things that are very specifically related to the operation of the election, the Chief Electoral Officer, of course, would be the truth teller when it comes to that — easily verifiable whether it’s objective or not.

I think, to the member’s question about complaint versus monitoring, let’s say, for example…. I gave the example from the States where a place of birth became a very contentious, big issue that was prominent in an election.

I could see, in that scenario, the Chief Electoral Officer seeking a way to verify from a candidate their place of birth so they could dispel that disinformation if it’s spreading, and then other circumstances where it would be complaint-driven. The person that’s impacted by that would know the most — that they were not a member of that association or the people associated with it, for example. So they would raise it with the Chief Electoral Officer.

I think those are some examples or thoughts that come to mind, based on the question of the member.

M. de Jong: It’s a good example, and I’m glad the Attorney raised it, because it does give rise to a question. Let’s take the example of place of birth, but it could be any one of the categories considered in 234.1(a) or (b).

[5:55 p.m.]

Two contestants are duking it out on the hustings, and an issue arises between them, an allegation by one against the other, and an allegation goes back and forth. I’m just thinking about it. What the Attorney has just said is that in those circumstances, the Chief Electoral Officer may, of her own or his own volition, having read the paper with a cup of coffee that morning and seen this controversy emerging, inject themselves into that and say: “I’m going to get to the bottom of this.”

Is that what we’re talking about? That’s a pretty activist role. That was the example she gave — a dispute between candidates and participants, and the Chief Electoral Officer says, of their own volition, not having been presented with a complaint by either one: “Well, I’m going to get to the bottom of this.”

That seems like a pretty activist role.

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s not my role to second-guess the discretion exercised, or contemplate the discretion exercised, of the CEO in administering the statutory duties that he’s given under this act.

We’re speaking hypothetically. I would say one of the things that would trigger that is whether or not the disinformation has the level of impacting an election. That’s contemplated under the discretion of the CEO under this act. We would leave that discretion to them, to weigh in on that. What’s clear in the bill, and what we’re proposing through this bill, is to have objectifiable categories of information where we’re saying that if you are spreading disinformation on these categories, then there are tools that the Chief Electoral Officer now has to enforce that and prevent the spread of that disinformation.

M. de Jong: I get that, and I appreciate what the Attorney is saying. I would say, though, it is appropriate to ask whether the Attorney, in commending this legislation to the committee, believes that it is a power statutorily created that requires the Chief Electoral Officer to be confronted by a complaint.

Presumably, it is the participants and the person against whom information, or misinformation, is being…. They are in the best position to trigger involvement and a re­quest for the Chief Electoral Officer to use this power.

I know we can’t anticipate every possible scenario. Here’s one in the right circumstances, an allegation be­tween candidates. One candidate 20 years ago was the subject of extensive fines by Employment Canada. There we’ve got a good old-fashioned controversy that’s brewing away in the Maple Ridge newspaper or the Abbotsford newspaper or maybe provincewide media, because it goes to character.

No one has made a complaint at that point, but I think it is important that the committee understand the Attorney and the government’s expectation around the use of these powers.

Is it the expectation that the Chief Electoral Officer and the office of the Chief Electoral Officer will be monitoring this and then proactively step in and say: “We’re going to get to the bottom of this, because it is verifiable”? Perhaps. Or are they going to wait and say: “We’ll deal with it if and when we get a complaint”?

By the way, I would suggest it would be wiser to do the latter. Otherwise, the expectation is going to be created that every time there’s a dispute between two politicians, the Chief Electoral Officer is going to step in and try to settle it. I don’t think that’s what anyone intends to create here.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just like every provision of this act, the proposed amendments give a discretion to the Chief Electoral Officer to administer these provisions and oversee a fair election. In that scenario, we do rely on their discretion when it comes to the functioning of each of these provisions. It’s clear that within the structure of these provisions, what the disinformation must reach a level of is affecting the results of an election with that intention of doing so.

Presumably, a lot of the scenarios that are being raised by the member in this hypothetical discussion are complaint-driven, because it has impacted a person. So then we would trust the Chief Electoral Officer to use the provisions and the tools of the act — if these amendments go forward, the amended provisions of the act — to make sure that there’s no interference of disinformation on the results of the election.

M. de Jong: The only reason I mentioned it is I think it is imposing a burden on that office that will be unworkable if we leave the impression that that office is going to proactively monitor and step in to investigate disputes that occur at election time, even around the limited number of areas contemplated here in this legislation. So I’ve said my piece on that.

Can I ask the Attorney…? Let us, for the sake of our conversation today, assume that we’re in an election period. An allegation in one of the areas contemplated in this section has been made, and it does give rise to a complaint. The person against whom the allegation has been made says: “That is absolutely untrue. It goes to my character, and anything that goes to my character diminishes my chances of prevailing in this electoral contest. I am going to the Chief Electoral Officer to seek redress under these provisions.” What happens then?

We have a process here in the chamber. If someone hears something they don’t like, they raise a point of order, and we have an adjudicator who sits in a chair here or a chair there. But even then, it’s not unusual for it to take a day — occasionally, a little bit longer — for the Chair to render a decision. We’re talking in this case about a far less immediate, in terms of proximity, circumstance — the possibility, dare I say it, in an election contest where the Chief Electoral Officer could be confronted by a number of those kinds of complaints. So what happens?

[6:05 p.m.]

What’s the Attorney’s expectation about how the Chief Electoral Officer is going to respond, in terms of timeliness, so that these things don’t go unresolved? You’ve got the authority. You’ve got the mechanism. But what’s the expectation…?

Is there an investigation? Is the person against whom the complaint has been made provided with an opportunity to make their case for why they believe the allegation is true? How does that work?

Hon. N. Sharma: As a statutory officer, the CEO has the discretion and ability and power to oversee and implement all the necessary things after this legislation, if it’s passed.

I will say, just based on our discussions, that if this legislation was passed, the process and tools for the false statements would be developed by Elections B.C. They would be based on best practices from other jurisdictions and current investigative tools and could include partnerships with existing fact-checking organizations. So, for example, if a false statement is made that candidate X was never a professional engineer, steps could be taken, including checking with the candidate, obtaining proof of membership and confirming with the self-regulating body.

M. de Jong: I agree with the Attorney to this extent. It’s possible to think of examples that should be relatively easily resolved or determined. But boy, I can think of a whole bunch of examples that would not be so easily resolved.

The example I gave about the allegation of administrative penalties ten or 20 years previously — you can imagine that that might involve the allegations made against an individual whose reply is: “Aha, well, it wasn’t me. It was a company I was involved with, and therefore it’s still….” We can imagine lots of circumstances where there might not be immediate clarity. We can also imagine circumstances where…. People are born somewhere, so an allegation about place of birth should be easily resolved.

I will confess that I…. Well, let me ask this. With respect to false statements, has the Chief Electoral Officer alerted the Attorney, in making the recommendations and advancing the changes to the act, to the need for any additional resources or personnel to assist in administering these new responsibilities?

Hon. N. Sharma: Same answer as before, when we talked about resources.

I do also want to talk about this idea of what’s verifiable and what is not. I think there’s an important starting point that would change after the passing of this legislation — that is, in any election that’s conducted subse­quently from this, it would be very clear to all the actors in an election what is disinformation and what are the tools of the Chief Electoral Officer, which can result in pretty significant penalties.

[6:10 p.m.]

That sets a new standard for our elections in British Columbia, which has a power of deterrence and conduct-setting at the offset of the election. I would expect that if parties or individuals beforehand thought that they could get away with spreading disinformation about some of the examples the member provided, under the new regime, where we’ve set that standard of conduct and an ability and tools to go after disinformation, we would see different elections.

M. de Jong: Well, I admire the Attorney’s optimism. Honestly, I’m not sure I share it completely, but good for her.

There is one other aspect to this, though, that is interesting and that may not lead to the same measure of discipline that the Attorney has just described on the part of organized political organizations, who quite frankly may have more to lose.

As I understand it from the language, this is an authority that also extends to nomination processes, and there are certainly members in the committee room who have been around long enough to know that nomination contests can be pretty wild and woolly affairs. That doesn’t mean…. I’m not defending that as in any way acceptable.

What I am suggesting is in the lead-up to an election, I don’t have a hard time imagining the Elections B.C. office, the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, inundated with requests from angry and upset nomination contestants who have filed a myriad of complaints about false information that has been disseminated against them over the course of a nomination contest. We’re not even into the election at that point. We’re just into sort of intra-family battles for nominations.

Has that been taken into account? Is the decision to include inner party affairs, like nomination contests…? Was that at the request of the Chief Electoral Officer? Is he alive to the workload issues that we hope won’t arise but that very well could?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I guess we will see how this plays out in B.C., but I do want to just stress the power of the new tools. We’re thinking of many scenarios, including nomination races, where really what we’re asking for is more accountability with the truth. And that impacts the election, which no candidate, no matter where you are, should be scared of.

I also want to comment a little bit on the power of the notice. You can imagine that — in these contested disputes, like nomination races or campaigns — for the Chief Electoral Officer to have the power to issue a notice to somebody that says they’ve been spreading disinformation with the intent to impact the results of the election, that’s a pretty heavy tool, especially when public perception as a candidate is one of your biggest tools. That’s what you’re vying for — the public to have trust and confidence in you.

I think we can’t underplay the power of the change of the tools that we’re giving the Chief Electoral Officer when it comes to setting a standard of truthfulness in our campaigns. We will see, as the member suggests, but I think that the tools do definitely provide a high deterrence factor.

M. de Jong: I won’t quarrel with the underlying assumption that the Attorney has made about the significance of the order, which is why I earlier asked a question about safeguards for the object of the complaint, who might be the subject of an order that could have pretty significant consequences for them and their ability to properly answer the allegation made against them in a complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer.

I’m going to ask…. Candidly, I’m trying to complete the bill here before we wrap up, and I have one more section that I wanted to pose a question on. However, one last question with respect to section 39.

For journalists that may be concerned that they are at risk of attracting a liability under these provisions, it strikes me that there are some safeguards, but I would like the Attorney General to comment on this. In inadvertently reporting a fact or transmitting information about a fact that is deemed subsequently to be false, it strikes me that a journalist could seek some solace in the fact that they would have to have reported it with the intent of affecting the result of an election — that they would have to know that it was false or have recklessly disregarded that it’s false.

Those are tests that operate to assist a journalist who might otherwise be concerned that they could be attracting a liability or an exposure under these provisions. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, I think that’s fair enough.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Whiteside moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:21 p.m.