Thank you, Mr. Chairman—and my appreciation to the committee for allowing me to appear before you via video conference. It's a great convenience to me and is much appreciated.
I want to begin by setting a bit of context around British Columbia.
In our elections in B.C., we use a 28-day election calendar. We have 39 registered political parties in British Columbia at the present time, so our political environment is a little different. Our general elections are to fill 79 seats in our provincial legislature.
When fixed election dates were brought to B.C., they came with mixed expectations and concerns, and I want to speak to those. There were expectations that fixed election dates would greatly ease the administration of elections—that is true. There were expectations that fixed election dates would save money in the administration of elections. That is true, but they don't save a lot of money. There were also concerns that by merely amending the B.C. Constitution Act and not making changes to provisions in the Election Act regarding campaign financing, there would be abuses of campaign spending rules. Those did not materialize.
That is my brief summary.
What happened in British Columbia with fixed dates is that they allowed us to plan better. We were able to rent our district electoral offices earlier. We were able to negotiate better financial arrangements with suppliers for equipment, because we could tell them when we needed it. We were able to secure better voting places, because we were able to advise the lessors of exactly when we required those spaces. We were able to recruit better staff by having certainty on when election officials would be required, which allowed us to do more thoughtful screening of applicants and to apply the merit principle in recruitment. I think the public was better served by the quality of both the voting places and the officials who served them.
We were able to do a lot of our administrative infrastructure upfront, and we knew well in advance of the election when things as simple as payroll cutoff dates would be. When you're paying 30,000 temporary employees during a provincial general election, that in itself is greatly beneficial. We were able to pack and prepare our warehouse in a reasonable scheduled time and to ship material out by less expensive means, because we had the knowledge of when the material was required; therefore, there were no late deliveries or emergency shipments.
Where we saw some of our greatest savings was in the area of advertising. Having the certainty of a fixed date allowed us to book television space well in advance of the event, and we saved significantly on the television advertising. We also saved some money on booking radio spots well in advance as well. So there were savings in advertising, which is a significant cost during the general election.
What fixed dates don't change is human behaviour. In the 2005 general election, we had 412 candidates. Almost 10% of those candidates waited until the last day of nominations to file their nomination papers, even though they had known, literally, for years when the election would be called. So human nature did not change with the fixed election dates.
We were pleased to be able to tell our returning electoral officers exactly when we would be requiring their services. It resulted in less attrition...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...to train the district electoral officers in a more thoughtful way over a period of time.
We also received a lot of advance interest from individuals who wanted to work in district electoral offices. Election officials again had knowledge of when they would be required, and we were able to more thoughtfully approach our staffing of those offices.
Because we were able to secure our advance voting locations well in advance, we were...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...the addresses of those locations on the where-to-vote cards...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...in the general election.
I believe in part due to that addition on the where-to-vote cards, our turnout at advanced voting increased 82% in our last election. Voter turnout in the 2005 election went up overall, albeit marginally. It's the first time we've seen an increase in turnout over a long time...Technical difficulty—Editor...and we were very pleased with that.
The public...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...election was going to be, and we're rather impatient for it to get under way. We had a number of voters requesting mail-in packages before the writs were issued. Something we need to make clear to the public is that we don't issue ballots until the writs are issued, whether we know the date in advance or not.
I mentioned earlier that there had been some concerns about the effect of fixed dates on the political financing framework. We did not see any abuses in the 2005 election. The parties spent a little more, and they also took in a little more in contributions. There were more third-party advertisers in our last election; however, the number of third-party advertisers seems to fluctuate in B.C., from one election to the next, depending on the issues that are relevant at the time.
Overall I would advise the committee that I think fixed election dates are of great value to voters and certainly to the electoral administration bodies. It brings efficiencies and the opportunity for improved effectiveness and better service.
There are minor savings, which is fine. It certainly doesn't save a lot of money, as I said, because most of the money spent in a general election is on salaries and those are unchanged whether you have a fixed date or not.
It doesn't change human behaviour; it didn't encourage all the candidates to register their nominations early on. But overall...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...was of great benefit, and I certainly am a believer.
That concludes my remarks.
