Today in the legislature we continued debating Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, 2015. Sadly, despite numerous amendments and sub-amendments, the Bill passed third reading as every Liberal MLA present voted in support of the bill in an almost robotic fashion. Of the 48 Liberal MLAs eligible to speak to the bill, only three, in addition to the Minister responsible, even bothered to take up this opportunity. Two of these MLAs simply rolled out patriotic pabulum about the importance of voting and the warm reception that Canadian World War II veterans recently received in the Netherlands. Neither referred to anything specific in the bill leaving me wondering if they had actually read it. Only Liberal MLA Moira Stilwell had the courage to speak out against the bill and its disturbing ramifications. For this she should be recognized and applauded.

In an earlier post I addressed the reason why I was opposing Bill 20: Election Amendment Act 2015. Bill 20 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. 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.

Government introduced an amendment at committee stage, in an attempt to create a level playing field for independent members wishing to run for office. How this amendment took the privacy concerns to a whole new level.  Government proposed that any candidate who ran in a previous election or is running in an upcoming election can obtain the list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in a previous general election or by-election.

This morning I tabled a petition of nearly 3,000 signatures from across British Columbia of British Columbians who were petitioning, respectfully, the honourable House to withdraw section 6 of Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act, 2015 and all amendments related to it. This petition was collected in just a matter of a few days.

Petition Introduction Video

Today was a very sad day for democracy in British Columbia. I hope that people across our beautiful province will speak up and let MLAs know that you are fed up with politicians putting their party ahead of the people they represent; that you are fed up allowing vested interests to influence election outcomes through campaign donations; that you are fed up being treated as a data point; that you are fed up with cynical campaigning — And the you demand better from this who you elect to represent you.

In a final attempt to delay introduction of the bill I introduced a so-called hoist motion. Below is the text of the motion and my speech, a video of my speech. The outcome of the votes are at the bottom.

Video of my 3rd Reading Speech introducing my Hoist Motion

Text of my 3rd Reading Speech introducing my Hoist Motion

A. Weaver: It is with a mix of frustration and desperation that I rise to table a hoist amendment of this Bill 20, the Election Amendment Act. The hoist amendment is this:

I move that the motion for third reading on Bill 20, The Election Amendment Act be amended by deleting the word “now” and substituting the words “6 months hence”.

A. Weaver: I feel that this bill is fundamentally at odds with what is in British Columbia’s best interest. We’ve seen amendments brought in at the last possible moment to address concerns of the Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner’s concerns have been public knowledge for over a month. Yet the government’s amendments are circulated the day before the final debate on this bill is due to take place, preventing a proper view of the proposed changes.

The Privacy Commissioner first wrote a letter to government regarding Bill 20 on April 13, 2015, expressing serious concerns with aspects of the bill  and urged the government to withdraw sections which amended section 51(2) of the Election Act . These provisions would give political parties the ability to receive information on who voted at the end of an election.

Her concerns were how this information would be used, especially since making the information available after the election runs contrary to the government’s stated purpose that this information was to be used for getting out the vote. Far from providing new tools for political parties to increase voter turnout, in my view there are legitimate concerns that provisions in this legislation could be used to do the opposite.

The members of the official opposition have spoken at great length during committee stage about the importance of our democratic reform and the need to reinvigorate our democracy. Over the course of this session, for example, as well, they’ve introduced the Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2015; the Legislative Standing Committee Reform Act, 2015; the Fixed Fall Election Amendment Act, 2015; the Youth Voter Registration Act, 2015; the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2015; the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2015; the Open Government Act, 2015; the Lobbyist Registry Reform Act, 2015; the Electronic Petitions Act, 2015; the Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015; and the Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015.

According to the members who tabled these bills, each is intended in one way or another to help enhance our democracy by, for instance, improving how we finance our elections, hold our governments accountable and engage British Columbians. Over the course of the debates on Bill 20, carried through to committee stage, the members of the official opposition have raised several concerns.

I would like to take a moment to dial in on one in particular, because it is of the utmost importance for the point I am about to make. The members of the official opposition have spoken substantially about the declining voter turnout that we have seen over the past several decades. To quote the member for Vancouver-Fairview: “When many of us were growing up, it was not uncommon to see voter turnouts in the 70s and 80s. When we now see voter turnouts of 54 percent called an increase in voter turnout, we should be alarmed.”

Similarly, to quote the member for Port Coquitlam: “I think all of us in this chamber — and in fact, people outside this chamber — have expressed concern about the decline in voter participation over the last few decades. There’s a constant desire to look at how we can increase voter turnout and how we can encourage voter turnout.” They are not alone. Almost every opposition speaker who stood up to speak to this bill and who raised questions during committee stage spoke about this concern.

One of the key solutions that members of the official opposition proposed was to register youth as voters as early as 16. This came up several times, both through official opposition questioning and my own questioning to the minister during committee stage. I, of course, have been actively promoting this idea also for quite some time. However, I think there is an important point here. The members who spoke in favour of this solution also generally recognized that on its own, it’s not enough. It is certainly a step in the right direction, but increasing voter turnout requires much more. It requires giving voters something to vote for.

In fact, the three ridings with the highest voter turnout in the 2013 provincial election were, one, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the riding that I represent; two, Saanich North and the Islands, the riding that the member behind me here represents, and a riding that my colleague Adam Olsen ran in a very close three-way race; and third, the riding of Delta South, where 68 percent voter turnout existed. The member is just to my left here, sitting off camera. I welcome the member for Delta South.

What these three ridings have in common is that all of them had a strong, credible and viable third candidate who inspired people to get out to the polls, who gave them something to vote for, as opposed to vote against, traditionally in our vote-splitting arguments.

This brings me to the point at hand. In its current form, Bill 20 would make a significant change to laws surrounding the voter list. This came out time and time again during questioning in the committee stage. Time and time again, it appeared that this bill had not been thought out to the level of detail that we had expected for a bill like this to be brought before us. This bill would give political parties and any candidates access to information about who votes and who does not vote.

The opposition has spoken about the privacy concerns surrounding this change. They have, as I have, highlighted the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner.

In fact, the member for Saanich North and the Islands quoted the Privacy Commissioner specifically by saying this: “There must be clear limits on the use and disclosure of this personal information by political parties. For example, permitted use of this information for electoral purposes, as set out in section 275 of the Election Act, should be clearly defined, and political parties should be prohibited from using the information for commercial purposes or disclosing this information to any other organization or public body.”

During questioning during committee stage we were certainly unsatisfied that the steps have been taken to ensure that this would be the case. Now, while I agree with these concerns, I believe that both government and the official opposition have missed a key point. There has been no consultation about whether a political party or candidate should even have the right to know if somebody has voted or not. Until such a time that that question is actually asked and discussed, in my view, the information is the purview of the voter and the Chief Electoral Officer and no one else.

Putting aside the questions of privacy that I’ll discuss a little later, I want to turn to a separate issue that is the core of the government’s stated purpose of bringing the bill forward: voter turnout, a statement that we explored in great detail during committee stage. We’ve seen very clearly from other jurisdictions where voter turnout information is already available that more often than not, it’s used to slice and dice voter lists so that political parties can get more bang for their buck.

They do this by focusing more of their resources on targeting people who have a tendency to vote, because they know, as we do, that one of the biggest indicators and predictors of whether or not a person will vote in the next election is if they voted in the last election — a question I explored in some detail during committee stage. Contrary to all of the talking points about how this change will help increase voter turnout, the evidence shows quite clearly that it will actually support political parties to focus more than ever on the subset of registered voters who actually vote.

Non-voters will run the risk of being neglected, as parties focus their limited resources on those people deemed most likely to be worth the investment. This isn’t idle speculation. It’s found in study after study into how political parties in North America compete in elections. This is especially relevant in our first-past-the-post system where, rather than seeking a majority, parties only need to seek a plurality of voters, greatly reducing the number of voter contacts some parties feel are necessary to win.

It goes even further. Once parties know who actually votes, they can then layer their own support data on top of this and ascertain who their opponents’ supporters likely are. We saw this very clearly in the last election. In fact, we see this in almost every election — the use of tactics that border on voter suppression, in trying to convince your opponents’ supporters to stay home and not vote.

We saw this when the B.C. NDP phoned voters in my riding telling them that if they voted for me, they would split the vote and elect a Liberal, despite no evidence at all to back up the claim. We saw the same message when Liberals blanketed B.C. with messaging designed to undermine voters’ confidence in the NDP so that those voters who would never vote Liberal would perhaps be less motivated to vote at all.

In second reading of this bill, and explored further at the committee stage, the Minister of Justice dismissed suggestions that parties might use this information to “essentially badger non-voters through repeated and unwanted communications” by saying: “why would a party do that? The goal for any political party is to gain voter support. The last thing you want to do is to alienate voters through unwanted contact.” Oh, the naivety of the minister for quoting such fine, fine words that I obviously agree with. But in practice, they do not play out, as the evidence I showed before suggests.

It’s clearly seen in the above two examples. This claim that political parties would never act in abusive ways is simply not borne out by the evidence. A more publicized example, of course, is the robocall scandal in the last federal election. In this instance, supporters of certain parties were called and told that their polling had changed. The caller purported to be from Elections Canada but was in fact a partisan attempt to suppress votes from other parties.

Now, the relevance of that, of course, is that, as I raised in committee stage, the sections that were being brought into the Election Act here in British Columbia mirror those sections that were brought into the Elections Act federally as an attempt to actually find ways, I would argue, to skirt around the election financing requirements that were brought in by successive governments federally. And we’re seeing the trend here as well. That was clearly evident from the questioning during committee stage.

By giving political parties and candidates access to the voters list, including information on who voted, we will be allowing those parties to run more targeted and effective voter suppression campaigns. No longer will they need to waste resources blanketing a riding or an entire voter list. Now they would be able to target just that subset of voters that they know for a fact are more likely to vote, and they can throw even more resources at them, thanks to the savings they receive from not spending resources on non-voters.

This change is not about increasing voter turnout or reinvigorating our democracy. If the members of this House truly care about this goal, they will agree with me that we need more time to consider the changes we are about to make so that we can find other ways to truly increase voter turnout. For example, we could read again the report provided in the fall of last year from the Chief Electoral Officer, which clearly outlined his top two priorities: (1) voter registration of youth at the ages of 16 and 17; and (2) introducing, on a trial basis, innovative ways of actually conducting election voting.

The member for Vancouver-Langara also rose courageously in this House to speak against the provisions of the act that she feels “do not improve our democracy and do not improve our ability to increase voter turnout nor produce better oversight of election results.”

This is not a common occurrence to see a government MLA speak out against a piece of legislation, and I believe it demonstrates the seriousness of what we are considering here. The member laid out an elegant critique of these provisions. “I stand to speak out,” she said, ” against these changes because I know that they do not have anything to do with improving voter turnout or improving our democracy. Quite simply, these changes are in the interests of political parties, not in the interests of individual British Columbian voters.”

The member for Vancouver-Langara talked to her constituents, listened to her constituents and recognized that her constituents did not support this bill, and I wonder if others in this House on that side of the House have done the same.

There are a lot of ways to improve voter turnout, and the member noted that these don’t involve violating people’s privacy. The member went out and talked to the constituents, as I said. She discussed it with them, and again, to quote from her speech, “voters do not want political parties to have more information about them, including whether or not they voted. When asked, people distrust political parties and politicians and believe, in the majority, that political parties, if they could, would manipulate election results.”

Wow. Is that not a testament to the reason why voter turnout is actually declining — the increased lack of trust, the increased belief in people that politicians are not trustworthy, that if they could, they would manipulate election results? This is why the member for Vancouver-Langara spoke out against it, and it’s why I have spoken out against it. It’s why the member for Delta South has spoken out against it. It’s why the members in the official opposition have spoken out against it.

The member for Vancouver-Langara’s concern was that this change would only make people more cynical, more guarded and more skeptical about their relationship with politics. It was not the commercial uses that worried her constituents, but the use of the information for targeted political pressure.

I would not for one moment presume to know whether the member for Vancouver-Langara feels that the government’s last-minute amendments address her concerns. What I do know is that I listened closely to her speech and found myself sharing many of her original concerns, and these last-minute amendments that we discussed and explored in committee stage only amplified my concerns for the political occurrence of abuse.

Despite claiming that these amendments address the Privacy Commissioner’s concerns, the Minister of Justice “did not feel it was necessary” to run the amendments past the Privacy Commissioner when asked if she had consulted with the office. This has as much to do with the content of the amendments as the manner in which they have been introduced into the legislature. They have been slipped in at the last possible moment.

Before the break, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner issued a statement on these amendments. While acknowledging that an attempt had been made to address her office’s concerns, I reiterate that in her original letter she commented that the best course of action would be to withdraw the provisions of this bill related to providing voter turnout information.

As I stated earlier today, I do not think this is a thoughtful manner for government to propose amendments to legislation, especially when it concerns fundamental issues of privacy. I feel that this is a clumsy attempt to put political interests ahead of what is best for British Columbians.

It’s in our best interest to postpone this debate and gather the necessary information from the public — those who are affected — and from a variety of experts, those who have explored other jurisdictions before proceeding with this bill.

I now wish to turn to addressing a secondary concern of this bill that was revealed extensively during committee stage and why I believe it’s in our best interest to hoist it.

The debate has so far centred primarily around what the government’s stated intentions are with this information — namely, the claim that these provisions are to facilitate “get out the vote” efforts. There is, of course, another area of concern: privacy.

In order to properly evaluate the privacy concerns that exist within this bill, I think it’s important that we understand how British Columbians feel about their privacy and whether political parties are acting responsibly to those concerns. Through thorough questioning at committee stage, it became clear to me that government has not sought input from British Columbians.

Let me give you such input. In the 2014 Survey of Canadians on Privacy, a report that was prepared for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, nine in ten Canadians expressed some level of concern about the protection of their privacy, with 34 percent saying they are “extremely concerned.” This is an increase from 25 percent in 2012. Furthermore, 73 percent of Canadians, the largest proportion since tracking began, feel that they have “less protection of their personal information in their daily lives than they did ten years ago.” A third statistic that is relevant to this debate: 56 percent do not feel they have sufficient knowledge about how new technologies affect their personal privacy.

This is the context in which we must evaluate Bill 20, as explored in detail through committee stage — a massive majority feeling they have less control over their personal information, a growing number of people expressing serious concerns about their level of protection, and a majority feeling they do not posses sufficient knowledge to evaluate how new technology affects their privacy.

What’s fascinating is that this study found that those people with low knowledge tended to be highly concerned, compared to 16 percent who were unconcerned. That is, the highly concerned percentage was 33 percent, compared to 16 percent who were unconcerned.

However, gaining knowledge about the privacy implications did not make these people less concerned. Those with knowledge still were overwhelmingly “highly concerned” — that’s 26 percent — as opposed to being unconcerned, 6 percent.

Within this larger Canadian study, British Columbians as a group were the least informed about how technology affected their personal privacy, with only 34 percent saying they feel confident that they “have enough information to know how new technologies might affect my personal privacy.” That’s compared to 48 percent in the Atlantic, 46 percent in Ontario and 41 percent in the Prairies.

We have heard in this session the Minister of Education tout repeatedly — and I concur — the exceptional nature of our education system. Yet these statistics are very revealing. Only 34 percent of British Columbians feel confident they have enough information to know how new technologies might affect their personal privacy. That’s very troubling, and it suggests that the government has not engaged British Columbians, has not informed British Columbians. This is why this bill must be delayed through another six months, to give the government a chance to actually consult with the people of British Columbia.

Let’s have a look at how Bill 20 fares when looked at through this lens of privacy. Bill 20 would provide political parties with a complete set of data on who in the province is voting. It would also, due to the last-minute amendments moved by the government and passed at committee stage, allow candidates in an upcoming election and people who were candidates in a past election to receive the information about who voted in the riding. That certainly constitutes more information about British Columbians that may be used in unforeseen ways.

As I stated above, despite the government’s suggestion that the information would be used responsibly, I think it’s imperative upon us that we consider the possible abuses permitted by the legislation. It’s my opinion that the legislation before us contains a number of areas of such possible abuse, which is why we need time to explore this further, to actually close any loopholes that would allow such abuse.

This, then, may rightly feed the growing number of Canadians expressing serious concerns about their level of protection. This is an important point. There is nothing in this legislation that outlines any enforcement regime to ensure privacy rights — that they are not violated. Certainly, we have the government’s new addition of a privacy policy requirement. But with such a lack of detail about how this will work, with no legislated enforcement and with no clear involvement of the Privacy Commissioner in the legislation, it’s hard to assess the level of protection afforded British Columbians.

In response to a specific subamendment to actually replace the Chief Electoral Officer by the Privacy Commissioner, to actually approve the policy requirements, I was given an answer that essentially said: “They work together. Trust us.” Well, there has been too much of this trust-us in this Legislature for quite some time. Sadly, trust-us just is not working.

We want to see the details. We want to know that the details have arisen from consultation with British Columbians. We want to see the evidence behind those details, not a trust-us approach, as this government is taking on this particular bill and everything else of late that seems to be coming through this House, whether it be the education amendment act or whether it be LNG and the fantasy that British Columbia lives in as to its wealth and prosperity for one and all.

This approach may rightly feed the growing number of Canadians expressing serious concerns about their level of protection. Again, this is an important point. There’s nothing that outlines any enforcement to ensure the privacy rights in this bill. I re-emphasize that.

Another important point is the total lack of consultation concerning the change. Providing voter information was not recommended by the Privacy Commissioner but was instead expressed by political parties as worthy of exploration. At no point has there been any attempt to properly assess whether British Columbians support this change or, indeed, whether they are even aware this change is taking place. Looking at privacy concerns, then, this legislation only feeds feelings of a loss of control by the electorate. It constitutes a change whose full implications we cannot rightly assume British Columbians are aware of.

To sum up this argument, then, this legislation is being considered without addressing the overriding privacy concerns that are being expressed by British Columbians. It does not clearly lay out a regime that British Columbians could feel confident about and, in fact, is being brought forward in a rushed manner where amendments and subamendments are brought to bear at the last possible moment. I think it’s important that we consider additional evidence and analysis of privacy considerations for political parties as I make my argument that this bill needs to be hoisted.

What else does the evidence tell us about privacy? A critical concern for political parties should be that Canadians feel more confident giving personal information to organizations when they feel confident in or trust that organization. As the member for Vancouver-Langara pointed out, “trust” in political parties from the electorate is depleted. We regularly see the reports of cynicism about politics.

The minister’s own talking points cite the lack of engagement in political parties as a key reason this is being brought forward. Yet the manner in which it has been brought forward would refute this as amendments have appeared at the last moment, appearing to have skirted a review from the Privacy Commissioner. Is this the best way to bring legislation forward concerning privacy, when transparency and expert opinion are so critical in building trust? I think not.

I want to look at this bill from another angle as well. This is the angle from the Canadian Standards Association’s model code for protection of personal information. It’s particularly important to look at it through the lens of this model code and in light of the evidence that arose during committee stage. There are ten principles in this code: (1) accountability; (2) identifying purposes; (3) consent; (4) limiting collection; (5) limiting use, disclosure and retention; (6) accuracy; (7) safeguards; (8) openness; (9) individual access; and (10) challenging compliance. After going through committee stage, it’s clear to me that there are provisions in Bill 20 pertaining to privacy that do not fare well according to these standards, and I’ll expand here.

For accountability. The government’s last-minute amendments that require a responsible person to bring forward a privacy policy may go a small way in addressing this area, certainly. But the manner in which it was brought in and the questions that still remain suggest there’s still a large gap that needs to be filled.

For identifying purposes. In my view Bill 20 fails to align the stated purpose, which was increasing voter turnout in an election, with the manner in which the information is gathered by “request after the election has taken place.”

It seems like a stretch to link this to voter engagement for the reasons I have given earlier and given during committee stage. We don’t today, as of this date, have an invention called a time machine to use such information to increase the voter turnout in an election that has already happened.

For consent, Bill 20 fails spectacularly. Not only are the provisions related to privacy advanced by the political parties and not Elections B.C., there have been limited attempts to actually inform or educate British Columbians as to what information may become available. This is one of the more important issues concerning privacy, in my view.

As politicians, we are in a unique position to legislate ourselves access to more information. It is shocking that we’re taking advantage of this. I feel it’s therefore our responsibility to ensure that we have adequately consulted with the public. While we cannot expect everyone to take time from their busy lives to read up on the privacy policy and inform themselves about Bill 20, we thankfully have created an independent office to look after these concerns. However, if we skirt around this office, limiting its ability to do its job, I feel we are failing to ensure the consent for this change.

With limiting collection, I have similar concerns to identifying purpose. The collection of this information is not limited in such a way that it is clearly used only for increasing voter turnout. The fact that this information is gathered by political parties after an election limits the applicability of the data to its stated purpose — to increase voter turnout. I retract all of this once a time machine is invented and we can actually go back and use this data in an election that has already occurred. But as of this point, such a machine does not exist.

For limiting use, disclosure and retention, I feel that we can legitimately question the retention aspect of the voter information. I attempted to address this with amendments to earlier sections of the bill during committee stage to require the destruction of this information once the election was over. Not to belabour the point, but if the purpose is to drive voter turnout up, why are we receiving this personal information after an election, and why would parties need to retain this information?

They wouldn’t. They wouldn’t need this information. And that became very clear during questioning at committee stage. For accuracy, this bill would ensure that parties can keep this information up to date. I’m not sure that that is exclusively a good thing, as I think there are legitimate concerns this information could be misused

With regard to safeguards, I’ve spoken earlier about my concerns that this bill does not lay out a legislative regime where information is being adequately protected. This really comes down to two points. The Privacy Commissioner does not have a legislated role in the act, despite the clear triggering of her jurisdiction and despite the fact that we tried, in amendments, to get that legislated role included.

Two is that there is nothing in the legislation that speaks to enforcement of the “privacy policy” that must be created to access this data. We’re left with a “trust us; it’ll work out” kind of approach to this. We’ve given examples — in committee stage, and here I’ve given others — to show that “trust us” simply is not good enough.

In looking at openness, it remains to be seen whether these privacy policies will contain a requirement that they be made publicly accessible. I don’t know. You don’t know. We haven’t been told. “Trust us” is the answer we get.

With individual access, British Columbians should expect to be made aware of the existence, use and disclosure of their information. To a certain extent, technology is changing the rules about data acquisition, but we must be careful that we don’t swing that pendulum too far.

Finally, with challenging compliance, I feel that Bill 20 provides no guidance except that a privacy policy must be accessible to the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections B.C. There is no guarantee specificity about how compliance can be assured, and this was ever so evident during committee stage.

The Canadian Standards Association’s model code for protection of personal information may or may not be the appropriate tool to use in analyzing this piece of legislation. It is certainly one that would look favourably upon certain provisions in this bill. However, without an ability to adequately consult the Privacy Commissioner to ascertain whether amendments that are tabled at the last minute address all of her concerns or whether other amendments that were put forward by members of this Legislature would have addressed them even better or completely or not at all….

Without this information, I am left to find whatever other tool I can. It is the use of the Canadian Standards Association’s  model code for protection of personal information.

In conclusion, it’s fitting to conclude this section by quoting directly from the Privacy Commissioner’s letter to the minister on Bill 20 so it is clearly on the record what it is that we are voting on.

“The amendment to section 51(2), however, extends beyond the objective of increasing voter turnout. This is because it authorizes the release of voter participation information to political parties after an election or by-election.

“Unlike the disclosures discussed in the previous paragraph which codify an existing practice and are directly tied to getting out the vote on voting day, the purpose of this disclosure is for political parties to receive personal information in a comprehensive and accessible format after voting day in order to perform analytics and other uses.

“This disclosure was not recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer, and the purpose of this disclosure is not directly tied to getting out the vote. It is also not a disclosure allowed by most provinces in Canada.”

These aren’t my words. These are the words of the Privacy Commissioner. These are words that should have been adhered to. Yet “Trust us. It’ll work out” is the answer that we get.

The original reason the Legislature authorized Elections B.C. to compile a list of voters was for the purpose of administering elections. I’m 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 names to Elections B.C., given that I do not believe there has been any public consultation on this expanded use of the voters list.

If this act were to proceed, Elections B.C. would be disclosing personal information that is likely to be linked with other information in political party databases and elsewhere. This linking and the associated analytics can be used for creating voter profiles, targeting voters, fundraising, sharing data across systems for secondary purposes, collecting non-consensual information, inappropriate communication from parties and other intrusive uses. This became absolutely apparent during committee stage as members in the opposition probed the minister on various sections in the proposed bill.

I’m not persuaded that any of these uses are consistent with the foundational purpose for which the compilation of the list was originally permitted. Given the above, I urge government to withdraw the proposed amendments to section 51. Personal information compiled for efficiently administering elections should not, from a privacy point of view, be provided to political parties for their broader use. People are not data points, and they should not be treated as such.

I urge members on all sides of this House to recognize that this bill was brought in prematurely and that additional time — six months in particular — is required and necessary to actually go to British Columbians, the voters of our province, and ask them what they think, whether they support this and what they believe the role of the voters should be in terms of enhancing, or not, voter turnout.

Hon. Chair, with that, I thank you for your attention, and I certainly hope the hoist motion is supported

The Vote on my Hoist Motion

The Vote on 3rd Reading

In an earlier post I addressed the reason why I was opposing Bill 20: Election Amendment Act 2015. As mentioned earlier, Bill 20 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. 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.

Today in the legislature we debated the bill at committee stage. Government introduced an amendment that, in an attempt to create a level playing field for independent members wishing to run for office, took the privacy concerns to a whole new level. Now government is proposing that any candidate who ran in the previous election or is running in an upcoming election can obtain the list of voters that indicates which voters on the list voted in a previous general election. Obviously I continue to vigourously oppose this bill as I believe that it is nobody’s business apart from the voter and the chief electoral officer to know who or who has not voted. That’s a matter of privacy.

Below is my initial reaction to the government’s amendment. Full deliberations are available on Hansard.

Video of Reaction to Government Amendment

Text of Reaction to Government Amendment

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for bringing in this amendment. Unfortunately, I, too, like the member before me, just cannot support this legislation.

This amendment is actually the second amendment we got in 24 hours. We received, late in the day yesterday, a copy of an amendment to reflect some concerns that had been raised by members in this House. Then later on, after members in this House had gone home, we get a subamendment, or an amendment of the amendment, at 7:05 p.m. last night.

I recognize that the government is trying to modify and take into account some of the concerns about the Privacy Commissioner with respect to people signing agreements, but it has taken this to an entirely new level.

What it has done is…. From a situation whereby political parties could acquire voters lists with information as to who has or who has not voted, it’s now extended to candidates who ran in the last election, to candidates who will run in the next election.

We have people who run in some elections as a protest vote. We are now saying that anybody in the province of British Columbia who was a candidate, who will be a candidate, who might be a candidate, who wishes they were a candidate is, essentially, getting access. As a protest vote, they get access to this information.

I don’t have a problem with people having a fair and level playing field. That’s not the issue here. The issue is who needs to know whether you voted or not. It is nobody’s business to know if I voted or if I did not vote, except to me and the Chief Electoral Officer.

We’ve gone from a situation where British Columbians across the province have stood up and said, “We don’t like this; we don’t like it when government is actually giving political parties information on whether I did or I did not vote,” and what’s the government’s response? To bring in an amendment to, first off, give political parties and all candidates that same information. A wonderful way of listening to the voices of British Columbians. They expand it further.

Then, at 7:05 last night, they take it another level. They give it to future candidates as well. This is a government that is so out of touch with British Columbians that not only does it not listen to them, it actually, when it hears them — or doesn’t hear them — takes it to another level.

It’s unbelievable that we have this amendment before us today. It’s unbelievable that this government is trying to actually give private information — information as to whether I vote, information as to whether the member for Saanich South votes, information as to whether my daughter votes — to political parties, to every candidate who will run, to every candidate who has run.

What possible purpose could this information be used for? It is not going to be used to help voter turnout. Absolutely no way this can be helpful for improving voter turnout, and yet this is the justification government is giving British Columbians — that this somehow is going to improve voter turnout.

What this is saying, what we’re seeing through this amendment and what we’ve seen through the selective use of the recommendations coming from the Chief Electoral Officer, is a government that recognizes that it’s losing touch with the people and so is initiating tactics designed for voter suppression of youth, tactics to give them an unfair advantage because they can’t get volunteers anymore. They’re finding it a tough time in the Liberal Party of British Columbia to get volunteers to go to be scrutineers.

The Green Party of British Columbia has no problem with that. The independent member for Delta South has no problem with that. I won’t speak for the opposition, but I suspect they have no problem with that. It’s because this government has turned off voters. They cannot get voters to help them out, so they want the government to help itself out through providing information to the government on which they can target voters based on their voting patterns.

This is so fundamentally wrong that I’m surprised that the government, rather than pulling this section, takes it to another level and tries to create this so-called level playing field.

This amendment must fail. This amendment should fail. If there’s anything that the opposition on this side will do, I’m sure we will all vote unanimously so that this amendment does not pass.

Sadly, it is government who will have to look British Columbians in the face and say: “You know what? We don’t listen to you anymore. You know what, British Columbians? We’re going to get your private information because we want to target you. We want to target you for messaging, target you if you voted or not, because we can’t get volunteers because people are straying from our party, and we’re desperate to stay in power.

“We know that our promises of LNG are not going to materialize. We know we’re saying this and that and the other, but they’re not materializing. Instead, what we’re going to do is use your personal information to try to manipulate” — yes, hon. Chair, manipulate — “future elections, to suppress the youth.”

The only possible way this could be brought in is to turn off voters, for voter suppression tactics. This is absolutely egregious, and this amendment must fail.

Media Statement – May 14, 2015
Andrew Weaver calls on government to delay debate on Bill 20
For Immediate Release

Victoria, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party is calling on the BC Government to delay the debate on Bill 20, scheduled to take place today.

The Minister of Justice circulated amendments to Bill 20 yesterday, one day before the final debate on the Bill is scheduled to take place. However, at the end of the day yesterday, additional changes were brought forward by government that amended the most recent amendments.

“This is not a thoughtful manner for government to propose amendments to legislation especially when it concerns fundamental issues of privacy,” said Weaver. “We are witnessing a clumsy attempt by government to push through legislation that puts their political interests ahead of the interests of British Columbians.”

The Privacy Commissioner’s concerns have been public for over a month. On April 13th 2015, The Privacy Commissioner wrote a letter to government regarding Bill 20, expressing serious concerns with aspects of this Bill, and urged the government to withdraw sections which amended s.51(2) of the Election Act. These provisions would give political parties the ability to receive information on who voted at the end of an election. Her concerns were related to how this information would be used, especially since making the information available after the election runs contrary to the government’s stated purpose that this information was to be used for “get out the vote”.

“I am profoundly concerned the Privacy Commissioner will not have adequate time to review the amendments and offer recommendations before this Bill is passed. This has the appearance of desperation. The government appears to want the Bill to pass quickly without critical information and review,” said Andrew Weaver. “Let’s postpone this debate and gather the necessary information before proceeding on this Bill”.

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

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

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