Today in the Legislature I rose to table my second private members’ bill: Bill M220, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2015.

It is clear that British Columbians are concerned about oil pipelines and have lost confidence in the federal review process. The problem is, the tools we have to make our voices heard are too restrictive. If enacted, this bill would give British Columbians a stronger voice on how oil pipeline proposals are evaluated in the province.

Just last month, people in Vancouver saw first hand how unprepared we are for an oil spill. It’s clear from the federal hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline that these concerns aren’t being adequately addressed. My bill would make it easier for British Columbians to require their provincial government to hold a made-in-B.C. hearing process on oil pipelines.

Introductory Remarks on the Bill

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill that is designed to empower British Columbians so that their voices can be more effectively heard on environmental reviews of major projects, like oil pipelines.

It’s fitting that I introduce this bill this week as we move to committee stage debates on Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. Too often politicians let themselves believe that the only time they need to listen to voters is at elections, and I disagree.

If we are to re-engage British Columbians in our democracy, we need to actively seek their view on far more of what we debate in the Legislature. We also need to provide them with additional tools to hold their government to account. The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act is one such tool.

As every member of this House will surely agree, we live in the most beautiful part of the world, and British Columbians want to keep it that way. They want to ensure our pristine coastlines, our natural environment and our unique ecosystems are preserved.

Under the existing Recall and Initiative Act an individual can put forward a bill to be either debated in the Legislature or put up for a non-binding referendum. To be successful, the proponent must collect signatures from 10 percent of registered voters in each of 85 electoral districts within 90 days.

The Recall and Initiative Amendment Act would change the electoral district requirement for initiatives that specifically address pulling out of environmental assessment equivalency agreements with the federal government. Successful petitions in these instances would require signatures from 15 percent of registered voters in British Columbia regardless of electoral district, making it easier to meet the requirements.

British Columbians have lost faith in the federal review process, particularly as they pertain to oil pipeline proposals. The province has not listened to their voices, and this bill would offer British Columbians an opportunity to ensure that their voices are heard. If an initiative were to pass under the proposed changes in the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, it would require government to pull out of an existing environmental assessment equivalency agreement for a particular project and hold its own made-in-B.C. review of, for example, a proposed heavy-oil pipeline.

Video of Introductory Remarks

Media Statement – May 13, 2015
Green MLA Tables Bill to Give British Columbians Stronger Say on Oil Pipelines
For Immediate Release

Victoria, B.C. – Today, Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party tabled the Recall and Initiative Amendment Act to give British Columbians a stronger voice on how oil pipeline proposals are evaluated in the province.

“It is clear that British Columbians are concerned about oil pipelines and have lost confidence in the federal review process,” said Andrew Weaver. “The problem is, the tools we have to make our voices heard are too restrictive. My bill would make it easier for British Columbians to make their voices heard.”

Under the existing Recall and Initiative Act an individual can put forward a bill to be either debated in the legislature or put up for a non-binding referendum. To be successful, the proponent must collect signatures from 10% of registered voters in each of the 85 electoral districts within 90 days.

“The requirement to have support from all electoral districts means that any individual riding can essentially prevent a popular initiative from being successful. In the case of regional issues, this is a significant restriction,” says Weaver.

Dr. Weaver’s Recall and Initiative Amendment Act would change the electoral district requirement for initiatives that specifically address pulling out of the Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreements that govern the federal pipeline reviews. Successful petitions in these instances would require signatures from 15% of registered voters in British Columbia, regardless of electoral district, making it easier to meet the requirements.

If an initiative were to pass under the proposed changes, it would require the B.C. government to pull out of the existing Environmental Assessment Equivalency Agreement for a particular project and hold its own made-in-B.C. review of the oil pipeline.

“Just last month, people in Vancouver saw first hand how unprepared we are for an oil spill. It’s clear from the federal hearings on the Trans Mountain pipeline that these concerns aren’t being adequately addressed. My bill would make it easier for British Columbians to require their provincial government to hold a made-in-B.C. hearing process on oil pipelines.”

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver, MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382

Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca

Media Statement – May 12, 2015
Weaver welcomes focus on climate leadership, but seriously, LNG?

For Immediate Release

Victoria, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party welcomes the government’s focus on climate leadership but is concerned that the government is putting LNG and a credibility-building exercise ahead of real action.

“The BC Government already knows what we need to do to address climate change. Academics, business leaders, First Nations and the Ministry’s own staff laid out a comprehensive plan back in 2008, and have been providing ongoing advice for years about the next steps we need to take,” said Andrew Weaver. “Now the government needs to show leadership by taking action – not by striking another expert panel to tell it what it already knows.”

Equally concerning is that while the government talks about it’s climate leadership, it has gutted its climate action initiatives to support its promises of an LNG industry. Such actions are a step backward for the province and are directly contrary to the goal of getting the province back on track to achieve our emissions reduction targets.

“While I welcome any effort to move forward on climate action, the Premier’s insistence that LNG form the centrepiece of the BC economy seriously damages our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as our credibility as a jurisdiction that is taking climate commitments seriously.”

If the Premier is serious about climate action, here are four actions she could take right now that would make a significant difference:

1. Re-start the annual increase of the carbon levy by $5 per tonne (up to a total of $50/tonne) and use the additional revenue generated from these further increases to help fund infrastructure and public transit investments that foster more sustainable communities, while reducing GHG emissions.

2. Update the BC building codes and infrastructure standards to allow for, and promote, the electrification of our vehicular fleet.

3. Reinstate the original Clean Energy Act. The purpose of the act was to require 93% of energy be produced from zero-emitting sources. It was changed in 2012 to deem natural gas a “clean” source of energy in order to accommodate the proposed LNG industry, despite the fact the burning natural gas releases GHG emissions.

4. Reinvigorate BC’s clean tech sector by having BC Hydro issue regular calls for power. Modify BC Hydro’s mandate to encourage the development of a geothermal capacity in BC. Reinstate the retail access program so that industry can partner with the cleantech sector to produce renewable energy for their use. Finally, BC Hydro’s mandate could further be modified to allow it to facilitate deals that would attract businesses who prioritize using renewable energy to BC, while ensuring that our base power can supply clean electricity for the increased demand we will face as a province.

-30-

Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Twitter: @MatVic

Parliament Buildings
Room 027C
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Global BC1 Interview

Today in the legislature I spoke against Bill 20: Election Amendment Act at second reading. This Bill implements a number of the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his October 2014 report. However, only one of the Chief Electoral Officer’s three priority recommendations was implemented, and that concerned providing flexibility in opportunities for advance voting.

The main recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer was to facilitate youth participation “allowing the provisional registration of individuals when they are 16 years of age. The voting age would remain at 18, with provisional registration becoming an active registration on an individual’s 18^th birthday.” This was not implemented. Another recommendation that wasn’t implemented was to provide “greater flexibility to the Chief Electoral Officer to introduce, on a pilot basis, a variety of new voting technologies.”

One egregious addition to the bill not recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer and opposed by the Privacy Commissioner is new language that allowed political parties to obtain a list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in a previous general election. This list would be available between general elections.

There is simply no way that this information would assist in improving voter turnout. If we accept that government’s motivation for introducing this bill is to improve voter turnout, then it is done in an incredibly inefficient and ineffective manner, one that requires the concomitant creation of a time machine to travel backwards in time. If, as is far more likely, this information is being gathered to enhance the databases of political parties, then it’s incredibly effective.

My own view is that whether a person votes or doesn’t vote is no one else’s business apart from the voter and Elections B.C. There are many ways of improving voter turnout, not the least of which is offering people something to vote for instead of vote against.

Below is the text of the speech I gave at second reading. I will be voting against the bill at second reading. If it passes then, I will be introducing several amendments at committee stage to ensure that the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner are incorporated into the Act.

Second Reading Speech

A. Weaver: I rise today to speak on Bill 20, the Elections Amendment Act. My speech today will revolve around three key elements of the bill. First, I’d like to discuss government’s apparent decision to give up its fight to better regulate the influence of big money during the pre-campaign period. Second, I’ll outline and speak in support of several aspects of this bill that follow from the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Finally, I’ll express my serious reservations about parts of the bill where, under the guise of increasing voter turnout, government has made it easier for political parties to build up their databases. Low voter turnout is a serious issue and deserves far more than a token effort to resolve it. I’ll touch upon this more later on in this speech.

Pre-Writ Spending

First to pre-writ spending. I’ll deal with each of these in turn, beginning with the pre-campaign period. This is a complex issue that deserves some context.

In 2001 British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada to introduce fixed election dates. Since then, we’ve been followed by seven other provinces as well as by the federal government.

With fixed election dates came new concerns about the role of money in politics. Many commentators warned of a free-for-all occurring in the days and even the months before the writ was officially dropped. This turned out to remarkably accurate. For evidence of this, just turn on Hockey Night in Canada and count the number of political ads that are aimed at the federal election that is still many months away.

In 2008 the province tried to address this new challenge and introduced an Election Amendment Act quite different from the one before us today. That bill set out financing limits for political organizations as well as third parties in the 60 days before the official start of the election.

Spending limits are incredibly important in a vibrant democracy. They work to promote equality in our political discourse. They ensure that wealthy voices don’t drown out the rest and retain confidence in our electoral system.

An important component of any electoral spending law is a limit on third-party spending. Without these limits, political parties can easily circumvent the rules by creating special interest groups to convey their message for them. The limits also prevent the possibility of wealthy individuals or organizations dictating the terms of public discourse and, by extension, the election itself.

One portion of the previous bill, the pre-writ spending limits for third parties, was struck down by the B.C. appellate courts. Their concerns were not with the principle of pre-campaign spending limits but, rather, with the heavy-handed way government put them into place.

The court ruled that the government’s definition of what constituted election advertising was far too broad. Instead of just stopping campaign advertising, it would have muffled commentary from any third parties, regarding the budget, throne speech and government legislation in a pre-campaign period that included the sitting of the Legislature.

Government rewrote their legislation, submitted it to the Court of Appeal and once again faced a ruling that their language was far too broad. It is in response to this history that I presume we see the Election Amendment Act, 2015, repeal the pre-writ spending not just for third parties but, rather, for all political parties as well.

It seems that since government’s attempts to create rules that cover a period before the writ is issued have so far failed the court tests, they are levelling the playing fields to ensure that political parties are not disadvantaged with limits that others do not share.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the government’s early attempts to control spending in the pre-campaign period, I recognize that it has been difficult to properly enforce these regulations, given the court’s ruling, but I would like to quote from the court opinion of Hon. Justice Ryan.

“I am not persuaded that there are not ways of dealing with election advertising that do not interfere with political speech while Legislature is in session. For example, the fixed election date might be changed to a different time of year, the campaign period extended or the definition narrowed. These are matters for the Legislature to determine.”

Government’s attempt to control election spending was an important step on an issue that is pivotal to democracy. I must wonder, however, if we are not walking away from this effort prematurely. I would urge this House to take the advice of Hon. Justice Ryan. With a bill like this, we have an opportunity to tighten their definitions and resubmit legislation. With this bill, we have an opportunity to once again redefine the election process and allow every voice to be heard more clearly.

Positive Elements

There are a number of positive elements in this bill. With that said, the elements of the bill that I support are as follows.

In October B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer released a report on legislative recommendations. These were primarily commonsense measures that could bring about positive change. Government has put many of these into place in the Election Amendment Act before us today.

For instance, they have changed the rules surrounding advanced voting. By giving greater flexibility to Elections B.C., this bill would provide more opportunities for rural voters to cast their ballots early.

Government has also loosened the restrictions on leadership races with only one candidate. Before this, a candidate acclaimed with no opposition, and therefore no expenses, would still have had to fill out an expense report.

Finally, government has fixed inconsistencies in the vouching process. As it stands now, a person vouching for their friend has to prove their identity, while a person claiming to be a relative does not. By changing the vouching process, government has brought more confidence to our electoral process.

Sequence Numbers

However, these were not the only recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. During his consultation, the Chief Electoral Officer discussed solutions to an incredibly important issue facing British Columbians today and, indeed, Canadians as a whole. That is the issue of low voter turnout.

In the last election only 55 percent of eligible British Columbians voted, so 45 percent had a chance to speak, and they stayed silent. Cynicism, apathy, anger, a feeling that there was no one to vote for unless a “none of the above” box was added to the ballot — whatever their reason for silence, it is clear that action must be taken.

With this in mind, the Chief Electoral Officer advised government to take some action. He asked them to authorize Elections B.C. to give candidates a list of voter sequence numbers at the end of each advanced voting day as well as the election itself. The bill before us has followed the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendation in this regard and codified an already existing practice.

While everyone in this House can recognize the need to address low voter turnout, it’s important to tread carefully. The information citizens give when voting should be used with the greatest care, and this bill must safeguard this responsibility.

These concerns are echoed by the Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham. I would like to quote Ms. Denham’s letter to the Minister of Justice.

“I fully support the need to address low voter participation, and I recognize that the purpose of sections 96 and 99 amendments is to increase voter turnout in a manner that is controlled by Elections B.C. and fair to all candidates. It’s important to ensure that personal information disclosed to candidates during advanced and general voting is only used for this purpose [and] I would also recommend that Bill 20 require that voter participation information disclosed pursuant to sections 96 and 97 be destroyed following the election.”

It’s with this in mind that I’ve put two amendments on the order paper. Following the advice of the Privacy Commissioner, these amendments would require the voter information gathered by candidates in the new ways laid out in section 96 and 97 to be destroyed following the election.

I recognize the government’s rationale with respect to these sections. I simply urge them to move forward with the utmost caution when it comes to disclosing any voter information.

In fact, my own view is that whether a person votes or doesn’t vote is no one else’s business apart from the voter and Elections B.C. There are many ways of improving voter turnout, not the least of which is offering people something to vote for instead of vote against.

Political Parties

Privacy concerns also render section 6 of this bill very worrisome. This section would require Elections B.C. to offer the list of voters to registered political parties. This list would include their name, address and the new addition, advanced under this bill, of whether or not they actually voted. It did not come from the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations, and it has faced serious criticisms from the Privacy Commissioner. To quote Ms. Denham once again:

“The original reason the Legislature authorized Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering elections. I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments allow for other uses and expand the already broad ability of political parties to collect information about voter participation.

“It would also certainly exceed what British Columbians anticipate when they provide their name to Elections B.C. I do not believe there has been any public consultation on this expanded use of the voters list.”

I recognize that much of this information is already collected by scrutineers and, as such, available to political parties. I recognize government’s argument that this simply codifies existing practices and is intended to increase voter turnout. However, I feel that these arguments fail to recognize one simple fact: this information is given out after an election.

Hon. Speaker, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that it will be very difficult to get people to vote in an election that has already happened. If we generously prescribe government’s motivation to getting out the vote, then it is done in an incredibly inefficient and ineffective manner, one that requires the concomitant creation of a time machine. If, as is far more likely, this information is being gathered to enhance the databases of political parties, then it’s incredibly effective.

Giving voter turnout information to political parties after an election seems to contradict the government’s claims that this has anything to do with increasing voter turnout. One of the reasons cited in discussions of this provision notes that with decreasing engagement, some political parties are facing a shortage of volunteers. This is putting pressure on political parties to find scrutineers and other election day volunteers to help them get out their vote.

I have significant issues with this line of reasoning. In my view, the use of technology in elections should be used to enhance the relationship that a candidate and a political party has with the voters. It can’t help facilitate an ongoing relationship with far more voters than was previously possible.

However, if we allow it — that’s technology — it can also boil the incredibly important human interactions that are essential in a thriving democracy down to data points, and this we must be concerned about this.

To maintain a connection to the electorate requires hard work, especially in a time when voter engagement is on the decline. If we truly want to address voter disengagement, let’s do it in a way that offers new engagement opportunities, not by providing political parties with information about the electorate that boils it down to data points so that they don’t have to worry about working hard to gather it themselves.

Furthermore, this provision is especially discriminatory towards independent candidates. Right now only political parties will be able to take advantage of it. There’s no reason for independent candidates, like the esteemed member for Delta South, to be boxed out of the process even further. A variety of voices gives life to debate in the House. The act, whether intentional on, provides a huge advantage to political parties at the expense of independent voices.

I’d urge government to retract this section entirely. It’s poorly constructed, it did not come through consultation, and it does not serve the interests of British Columbia.

Failing that, I’d urge them to adopt another amendment that I’ve added to the order paper. It would not fix the act entirely, but it could be an important step in the right direction. This amendment would address one of the Privacy Commissioner’s most important concerns and put stringent conditions on the use of voter participation information. It would allow Elections B.C. to regulate the use of information under the definition of electoral purposes and explicitly prohibit the use of information for commercial purposes or the disclosure of information to any organization or public body.

Voter Turnout

Now let’s turn to voter turnout. Ostensibly, the aforementioned new disclosure is made in order to increase voter turnout. If this really is the case, government has missed its mark entirely, sacrificing privacy without fixing the problem. Government needs to get serious about dealing with low voter turnout and address it in a way that actually has the evidence to back up its claims. It deserves serious discussion and debate, and it deserves to be the very core of this bill.

With that in mind, there are certainly ideas I would love to have seen in this bill that could take practical steps toward increasing voter turnout. One example is an idea that was actually raised by the official opposition in the last election and has been recommended by the chief elections officer: bring in voter register to 16. By lowering registration age, we would empower Elections B.C. to work with driver’s licence programs as well as schools.

Every single high school student in the province of British Columbia is required to take social studies in grade 11, and a large part of the class is learning about democracy and citizenship. This unit could culminate in registering to vote, with the importance of this duty fresh in the minds of the students taking the course.

We should have all British Columbians registered by the time they can vote; 18- to 24-year-olds have the lowest voter registration rates, and voting is habit-forming. A generation that votes when they’re young is far more likely to do so when they’re older. If we can impact change at a young age, it will carry forward in the years to come.

In fact, perhaps we should be reducing the voter age to 16. If 16-year-olds are allowed to drive, perhaps we should initiate a conversation concerning whether they should be allowed to vote as well. After all, the youth of today live the consequences of the decisions we make. It’s important that we engage them early in our democratic institutions.

This would be a positive step forward, but alone it is not enough. We need to start a serious conversation on how to rebuild public engagement and convince British Columbians to let their voices be heard. We should have consultation from a wide variety sources and forum that draw bold legislation that can impact real change. This should start with the introduction of a ban on union and corporate donations, as is the case federally. Neither unions nor corporations vote. People vote.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are many things that our electoral system requires, many ways to breathe new life into our democracy. We need spending limits in the weeks leading up to a campaign. Groups with the most money should not be able to drown out every other voice. If we’re going to hear the diverse set of voices that make up a dynamic campaign, we need to keep the drone of money down.

At the same time, we need to carefully balance spending limits with people’s right to criticize or compliment government and its actions. In its previous laws on pre-writ spending, the government’s goals may have been noble, but its delivery was flawed. This prognosis rings unfortunately true for the legislation before us.

Getting out the vote is remarkably important to any true democracy, but it cannot come at the expense of the rights democracy is designed to protect. There is no way I can justify trading our privacy for a weak attempt — an unjustified attempt — at increasing engagement. If government is serious about bringing more people to the polls, they should make a concerted effort to do so. They should engage stakeholders, work with experts and build consensus. If they brought forward a bill which promised to effect real and positive change in this area, then I would support it wholeheartedly.

As it stands, I cannot support this token effort when real action is needed. I cannot support an attack on privacy when entrenched political parties are the only ones who will benefit. For these, I cannot support this bill and will be voting against it at second reading.

Video of Second Reading Speech

Over the course of the last few months I have been working to raise awareness about the regressive approach British Columbia is taking to fund health care via flat-rate MSP premiums. I’ve been pressuring both the government and the official opposition to support a more progressive approach like that in place in Ontario.

I’ve written about this earlier and tabled a petition in the legislature of 6,662 British Columbians who agreed. Furthermore, during question period, I asked the Minister of Finance if the government would empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged. The Minister responded that he believed the mandate of the committee was sufficiently broad for “members of the committee, and those that they might invite in, to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to”.

Following up on the Minister’s response, I formally wrote to the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on April 17 asking two specific questions regarding the possibility of initiating a conversation with respect to the funding of MSP in British Columbia.

I received a response to my letter today.

The response was, to say the least, most disappointing. The Chair of the committee stated that “they consider only those matters that are referred to them by the Legislative Assembly”. Given the Minister’s response to my question during question period, this statement is most perplexing.

What’s even more troubling is that further in the letter, the Chair of the committee states:

“The Committee is currently working to identify potential strategies to ensure the sustainability and improvement of our health care system while ensuring its financial sustainability.”

Moving MSP premium funding from a regressive to a progressive system of funding is precisely one of the key ways we can ensure the financial sustainability of our healthcare system. I am astonished that the Committee has apparently not recognized this.

For those interested, the Select Standing Committee on Health has the following members:

Linda Larson  Liberal, Boundary-Similkameen (Chair)
Judy Darcy  NDP, New Westminster, (Deputy Chair)
Donna Barnett Liberal, Cariboo-Chilcotin
Dr. Doug Bing Liberal, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows
Sue Hammell NDP, Surrey-Green Timbers
Richard T. Lee Liberal, Burnaby North
Dr. Darryl Plecas Liberal, Abbotsford South
Jennifer Rice NDP, North Coast
Bill Routley NDP, Cowichan Valley
Dr. Moira Stilwell Liberal, Vancouver-Langara