Bill C-76 (Historical)

Elections Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to establish spending limits for third parties and political parties during a defined period before the election period of a general election held on a day fixed under that Act. It also establishes measures to increase transparency regarding the participation of third parties in the electoral process. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) adds reporting requirements for third parties engaging in partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys to the reporting requirements for third parties engaging in election advertising;
(b) creates an obligation for third parties to open a separate bank account for expenses related to the matters referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c) creates an obligation for political parties and third parties to identify themselves in partisan advertising during the defined period before the election period.
The enactment also amends the Act to implement measures to reduce barriers to participation and increase accessibility. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) establishes a Register of Future Electors in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included;
(b) broadens the application of accommodation measures to all persons with a disability, irrespective of its nature;
(c) creates a financial incentive for registered parties and candidates to take steps to accommodate persons with a disability during an election period;
(d) amends some of the rules regarding the treatment of candidates’ expenses, including the rules related to childcare expenses, expenses related to the care of a person with a disability and litigation expenses;
(e) amends the rules regarding the treatment of nomination contestants’ and leadership contestants’ litigation expenses and personal expenses;
(f) allows Canadian Forces electors access to several methods of voting, while also adopting measures to ensure the integrity of the vote;
(g) removes limitations on public education and information activities conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
(h) removes two limitations on voting by non-resident electors: the requirement that they have been residing outside Canada for less than five consecutive years and the requirement that they intend to return to Canada to resume residence in the future; and
(i) extends voting hours on advance polling days.
The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a) removes the assignment of specific responsibilities set out in the Act to specific election officers by creating a generic category of election officer to whom all those responsibilities may be assigned;
(b) limits election periods to a maximum of 50 days;
(c) removes administrative barriers in order to facilitate the hiring of election officers;
(d) authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(e) removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(f) replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(g) removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
(h) replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;
(i) relocates the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provides that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years;
(j) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of provisions of Parts 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and certain other provisions of the Act;
(k) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to lay charges;
(l) provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the power to apply for a court order requiring testimony or a written return;
(m) clarifies offences relating to
(i) the publishing of false statements,
(ii) participation by non-Canadians in elections, including inducing electors to vote or refrain from voting, and
(iii) impersonation; and
(n) implements a number of measures to harmonize and streamline political financing monitoring and reporting.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide for certain requirements with regard to the protection of personal information for registered parties, eligible parties and political parties that are applying to become registered parties, including the obligation for the party to adopt a policy for the protection of personal information and to publish it on its Internet site.
The enactment also amends the Parliament of Canada Act to prevent the calling of a by-election when a vacancy in the House of Commons occurs within nine months before the day fixed for a general election under the Canada Elections Act.
It also amends the Public Service Employment Act to clarify that the maximum period of employment of casual workers in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer — 165 working days in one calendar year — applies to those who are appointed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment contains transitional provisions, makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Special Voting Rules.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's one way that you could do it. You could say, “Look, as a matter of fact, you're required to be here, and if you're not here, then that's a criminal offence.”

Another way that you could do it would be to do it under the Canada Elections Act. If you did it under the Canada Elections Act, particularly if the punishment for not showing up was some kind of fine, then you would actually be generating revenue. If we knew that a new process for federal election leaders debates was going to be revenue generating, then we would have to consider that as we consider this price tag of $750,000 because perhaps then the costs both of developing and then implementing this new process would be offset by revenue. We can imagine that federal leaders would be likely to want to show up and not incur that cost, but it would be an open question as to whether or not they do.

Even as we think about that, another question comes up. Which leaders of federal parties would be eligible or would be required under the legislation? Would it just be leaders of official parties within the House of Commons prior to the last election? Would it be leaders of any registered political party that would then be part of this debate? Would it be leaders of federal political parties that are polling at a certain amount on the eve of the debate? I think there would be some considerable debate about what the qualification is. The reason this might have a cost implication is simply that if we're looking at whether or not a fine structure would generate revenue, it's going to matter how many federal political party leaders are required to be at the debate. If there's a whole bunch of them that are required to be at the debate, it's more likely that this will be a revenue-generating proposition than not.

Of course, there's another question that comes up with respect to trying to forecast revenue and, therefore, what it's appropriate for Parliament to approve if every leader of a federal political party is required to be at this debate. Of course, we know that some parties have more resources than others, and there may be a number of small parties without the means to fund their leader getting to that debate. In that case, they're going to have to undergo or submit to the fine. That is a question that bears on this.

Those are just the some of the most extreme versions where you have the government say that it's going to set the date and that it's going to require that they be there as a matter of criminal law, in which case we're amending the Criminal Code, or as a matter of administrative requirement under the Canada Elections Act, in which case there may be fines that could generate revenue. The government in Bill C-76, in the omnibus election reform bill, has actually used this mechanism as a penalty for other measures. In that bill, the government has proposed that if political parties fail to live up to the privacy policy that they post on their websites, a potential outcome of that could be that the party would be deregistered. That's pretty severe, but that's a consequence that's been put on the table by this government already. If it was inclined to use some of the mechanisms that it is already suggesting for certain important breaches of the election law, then we might see a scenario where if leaders of federal political parties don't show up to the federal election leaders debate, the party itself ends up deregistered. Again, that's quite extreme, but it's certainly something that is within the realm of the possible.

I'd remind you, Mr. Chair and the committee, that the debate we're having on this particular initiative is so wide-ranging because when we had the departmental officials here and we asked questions about what they wanted to do with the money, they left virtually every possibility open. They in no way restricted our thinking in terms of what they may or may not be doing with that money. That's why I think it's quite relevant to be exploring some of the possibilities of what they might ultimately come up with.

Certainly, if I can think of these things, and if we hear other suggestions from other members of the committee, then it's by no means beyond the ability of government to contemplate these things as well. That would be the issue if they were contemplating legislative changes in the most basic, strict way.

Another way they might introduce legislative changes that would be relatively complex and I think actually require more funding.... Although as I said,, I think it would be important for them to make those legislative changes and then ask for the funding. This is another reason I think we can in good conscience support this amendment and remove this money from vote 40.

One other kind of legislative change would be not to have government decide the dates of those leaders debates but to actually constitute, through legislation, some kind of independent commission that would then be the organization that does that and does it in a way that's arm's length.

You will recall, Mr. Chair, some of the complaints—and this was kind of an important discussion in the last election but some of these grievances certainly predated the last election; the last election wasn't the only time they came up—had to do with a media consortium without any particular mandate or authority deciding when and where these debates would take place as well as how these debates would unfold. That's something that any new legislation establishing a commission would want to address. We don't know that it would because we don't have the proposed legislation. We don't even know if the government is really contemplating that legislation. It does say in the budget, and if somebody ever wanted to find the page.... Maybe I'll look for it as I speak, Mr. Chair, because I think it would be beneficial, and I do have a tab here that does mention it. The problem is that there are so many tabs. I was trying to identify programs where there was an issue with not having sufficient information about a budget item before providing approval, and the PCO is definitely in here because that was one of them.

[Carlos Monje, Director of Public Policy, Twitter - United States and Canada, Twitter Inc.]

Thank you, Chair, for the invitation to appear today and for the opportunity to share our perspective.

My name is Carlos Monje. I'm the director of policy and philanthropy for Canada and the United States. With me is Ms. Michele Austin, the head of government, public policy, and philanthropy at Twitter Canada.

I apologize that we are not able to be with you today, though I was pleased to travel to Ottawa in January to brief Elections Canada and the Office of the Minister of Democratic Institutions on Twitter's approach to information quality, generally, and ads transparency, specifically.

Twitter connects people to what's happening around the world. One of the reasons people come to Twitter is that it is the best place to engage with and learn from political leaders and policy advocates. Twitter works with political parties across Canada to connect them with users, including through advertising.

We are committed to increasing transparency for all ads on Twitter, including political ads. In late 2017, we announced first steps in a series of changes on our platform to further promote freedom of expression, privacy, and transparency. Specifically, Twitter has launched a program to dramatically increase ads transparency. In addition to providing additional transparency for all advertising on the platform, we are piloting an effort in the United States to protect the integrity of our platform and our users by imposing additional eligibility restrictions and certification requirements on all advertisers who wish to purchase political ads.

We're going to increase awareness of paid political messaging by appending a visual badge on the face of paid political communications to make it clear when users see or engage with the political ad.

We're going to include disclaimer information regardless of the method of advertising—whether that's text, graphics, video, or a combination of those—in the most technologically practical way, and we're launching a political ads transparency centre that will provide users with additional details regarding the targeting demographics of each political campaign ad and the organization that funded it.

Once we have analyzed our U.S. experience with this pilot, and have made the necessary refinements, we will launch it to other markets, including Canada. There are ways in which digital communications are functionally and technologically different from ads placed on other media, including television, radio, and airplanes, as we heard in the panel beforehand.

We offer self-service to give advertisers control over what products they want to use on our platform and who sees them. Advertisers also create their own content. Often advertisers will use multiple advertising tools on the platform, using media like video or creating an emoji. Advertisers will often want to manage more than one @ handle associated with their brand. They want to work with multiple internal team members, with partners, with agencies, or with clients who also have access to that account. Advertisers often want to update or change content quickly as the campaign unfolds in real time.

Twitter supports the intentions of Bill C-76, the election modernization act. Twitter supports efforts to provide clear rules to advertisers who wish to purchase paid political communications on digital media and devices.

We ask the committee for some clarity, specifically around two clauses in the bill—clauses 282.4 and 491.2—which regulate how ads are sold and how the new rules will be enforced. These concerns include how “intent” and “knowingly” will be measured and proven with regard to hosting ads, how Elections Canada will enforce these changes, how suspicious activity will be reported, the ability of Elections Canada to act in real time, and misidentifying accounts of real users and how that will be remedied.

Twitter will need more time to complete our due diligence on the proposed changes and on how the platform will comply with them to host advertising, including by political parties.

In conclusion, Twitter is dedicated to and proud of our users' and advertisers' rights to speak freely. We also believe that giving users more context about political advertising is key to a healthier democratic debate. We look forward to continuing our work to improve our services and to working with you.

We look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Kevin Chan, Global Director and Head of Public Policy, Facebook Canada, Facebook Inc.]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is Kevin Chan, and I am the head of public policy for Facebook Canada.

I want to begin by acknowledging the importance of the subject at hand today, the integrity of our elections.

Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building community, creating a healthy environment for civic engagement. It is crucial to our mission as a company. We know that a service that fosters inclusive, informative, and civically engaged communities is critically important to the people who use Facebook.

I want to point out that we know how vital a platform Facebook is for your respective political parties and leaders in engaging citizens, and that it is an important means of communication that Canadians use to contact you directly. The Prime Minister used Facebook Live last week to announce Canada's new tariffs on the United States.

The leader of the opposition recently took part in a question and answer session with Canadians via Facebook, and the NDP leader live-streamed on Facebook his speech at the recent Kinder Morgan rally on Parliament Hill.

We recognize that Facebook is an important tool for civic engagement and that is why we take our responsibility to election integrity on our platforms so seriously.

In Canada, we understand the degree to which Facebook is a key platform for your respective political parties and leaders as well as an important way for Canadians to engage directly with you. The Prime Minister used Facebook Live last week to announce Canada's new tariffs on the United States. The Leader of the Opposition recently engaged in a Q and A session directly with Canadians on Facebook. As well, the leader of the NDP live-streamed his speech at the recent Kinder Morgan rally on Parliament Hill.

We recognize that Facebook is an important tool for civic engagement, and that is why we take our responsibility for election integrity on our platform so seriously. We have been engaged on the issue of election integrity in Canada for many years. Following the last federal election in 2015, the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections noted that Facebook's “cooperation and swift action on a number of key files helped us to quickly resolve a number of issues and ultimately ensure compliance with the Canada Elections Act”. It is our full intention to be equally vigilant in the next federal election in 2019. As referenced by the chair, a copy of the entire letter from the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections to Facebook has been sent to the committee for your consideration.

As you may know, the Communications Security Establishment published last year a report outlining various cyber-threats to the next federal election and identified two areas that Facebook sees a role in addressing: one, cybersecurity—the hacking into the online accounts of candidates and political parties; and two, the spreading of misinformation online.

In response, we launched last fall our Canadian election integrity initiative, which consists of the following five elements. First, to address cybersecurity, one, we launched a Facebook “Cyber Hygiene Guide” created specifically for Canadian politicians and political parties. It provides key information for how everyone who is administering a political figure or party's Facebook presence can help keep their accounts and pages secure. Second, we are offering cyber-hygiene training to all of the federal political parties. Third, we launched a new cyber-threat email line for federal politicians and political parties. This email line is a direct pipe into our security team at Facebook and will help enable quick response for compromised pages or accounts. Fourth, to address misinformation online, we have partnered with MediaSmarts, Canada's centre for digital and media literacy on a two-year project to develop thinking, resources, and public service announcements on how to spot misinformation online. This initiative, which we are calling “reality check”, includes lesson plans, interactive online missions, and videos and guides that will promote the idea that verifying information is an essential life and citizenship skill. Fifth, we launched our ads transparency test, called “view ads” here in Canada last November. This test, which is ongoing, allows anybody in Canada to view all ads a page is running, even if they are not in the intended audience. All advertisers on Facebook are subject to “view ads”, but we recognize that it is an important part of our civic engagement efforts. Candidates running for office and organizations engaged in political advertising should be held accountable for what they say to citizens, and this feature gives people the chance to see all the things a candidate or organization is saying to everyone. This is a higher level of ads transparency than currently exists for any type of advertising online or offline.

The “Cyber Hygiene Guide” and more information about these five initiatives can be found at facebookcanadianelectionintegrityinitiative.com. I have also circulated copies of the “Cyber Hygiene Guide” to this committee for your consideration. This is only phase one of our Canadian election integrity initiative, and we intend to launch additional measures to address cybersecurity and misinformation online in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election.

I want to also share with you some measures we have taken in advance of the Ontario election happening today. We conducted outreach to all Ontario candidate page administrators, sharing best practices to keep their accounts secure and ensuring that they have access to our cyber-threats crisis line. We sent an in-app notification to all Ontario candidate page administrators, which appeared at the top of their feed, reminding them to turn on two-factor authentication, and we launched a new MediaSmarts “reality check” public service announcement focused on how to access the validity of information online during a campaign. This video, which has been running since May 3, has been viewed more than 680,000 times. We will be rolling out similar initiatives for other provincial elections in Canada in the months to come.

With respect to Bill C-76, the elections modernization act, it is legislation that is about a broad range of election issues, many beyond the scope of Facebook. Bill C-76 does include a provision to require organizations selling advertising space to not knowingly accept elections advertisements from foreign entities. We support this provision.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Thank you.

I have two questions, or possibly only one, for Professor Sirota.

First of all, Leonid, it's good to see you again. I want to dwell on what I think is the central theme of what you're drawing attention to, which is that there are a number of restrictions on Canadians' charter rights contained in Bill C-76. You mentioned voting by Canadians overseas and how this deals with a charter challenge that's under way right now.

I'll just observe that there are still Canadian citizens living overseas who will be exempted from voting. For those who were born overseas, I'm not sure that from a constitutional point of view I see the distinction that their charter rights are somehow inferior to those of their parents. I guess if you argue that the section 3 right to vote is subsidiary to or limited by section 1, then you can make that argument, but I don't think that's the direction in which the Supreme Court has been heading, given that it allows prisoners to vote and so on.

More substantially, I think you raised a really interesting point. If we are fighting against the idea that there is a permanent campaign, and we want to say as a society that we don't want there to be a permanent campaign, then, I think you're implying, we start heading down a slippery slope in saying that we have to restrict political speech further and further out from the actual election date versus the writ period. Then it's this pre-writ period that starts on June 30 that will inevitably be found inadequate after zillions of dollars get spent in the next election prior to June 30, and then we will see further restrictions.

Is there a danger that we're heading in the direction of seeing substantial restrictions on freedom of speech, or is that too much fearmongering?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One of the questions that we're also talking about here is in terms of participation, and not just the participation of voters but also the diversity of those who seek to represent voters. A very good aspect of this bill is that child care costs, as I think you mentioned, can now be used as an election expense. You've also written about trying to get more women in particular into the system, which is what this primarily directed towards, I would estimate, but not necessarily.

I'll quote you here. You've said:

There’s a strong association between the type of electoral system adopted and the representation of women. Proportional representation electoral systems tend to have twice as many women in parliament than those that use first-past-the-post or single member plurality....

If you were forced to choose between provisions that exist within Bill C-76 and provisions that would, say, bring in the government's promise and bring in a more proportional system, and if the only lens you were looking through was greater diversity for our 75%-male-dominated Parliament, which would you choose?

[Leonid Sirota, Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. I'm terribly sorry for whatever has happened here. Thanks for having me.

I will start by commenting on one thing that Bill C-76 does, which is to lift restrictions on Canadians who are voting overseas, abroad, like me. Maybe this is special pleading on my part, but I will be happy to answer questions on why I think it's constitutionally a very commendable thing to do.

I will focus on the ways in which Bill C-76 continues or, indeed, increases some restrictions in Canadian election law on freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is central to the elections, and the elections are central to freedom of expression. This connection was recognized a long time ago by Canadian courts, well before the charter. F.R. Scott, the great constitutional scholar, once wrote that as long as the word “parliament” is in the Constitution, we have a bill of rights. That was the case before the charter, and yet no debate in Canadian society is as regulated as the one that occurs during election campaigns. Some of these regulations are important and necessary, some not so much.

I will focus on three particular restrictions on freedom of expression in Bill C-76.

The first of those is the definition of “election advertising”. The bill continues from the existing Canada Elections Act. The problem I see with it is that the exemptions it provides for communications from individuals and groups apply both to individuals and groups so long as communications are through traditional media, newspaper editorials, and that sort of thing, but so far as the Internet is concerned, only personal communications by individuals are exempted from the definition of “election advertising” and not the communications of groups. I see no good reason for that distinction. I see no good reason that, for example, the president of a union can tweet under his or her own name, but not under the institutional account of that union. I see, again, no reason for this difference. I think the definition should be amended to be technologically neutral.

The second point is the pre-campaign communications that Bill C-76 would restrict. Those restrictions are not in the current Canada Elections Act. In the Harper case, where the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on third party communications during election campaigns, the court said that one reason restriction was acceptable in a free and democratic society is that political speech is not restricted except during election campaigns.

While some people have said the absence of regulations on pre-campaign communications is a loophole that needs to be closed, in my view, it's actually an important constitutional safeguard that must be preserved. The British Columbia Court of Appeal considered restrictions on pre-campaign communications twice, and both times said they were unconstitutional. Now, the laws at issue were not exactly the same as Bill C-76—they were broader—so I'm not making a prediction on how the Supreme Court would rule on what's in Bill C-76, but at least there is a non-trivial chance that Bill C-76 is unconstitutional.

More importantly, the issue is one of principle. The problem that restrictions on pre-campaign communications are supposed to address is not called a “three-month campaign”. It's called a “permanent campaign”. The problem is that three months will not be enough to remedy the so-called issue with a permanent campaign. My concern is that Bill C-76 is a first step on the road to long-term and perhaps permanent restrictions on political communications in Canada, and it's not a road that we want to walk.

The final point I want to address is the restrictions on third party communications, both before and during the campaign. The Supreme Court has upheld what's in the Canada Elections Act now, but that's just the constitutional baseline. That doesn't mean Parliament cannot be more protective of freedom of expression than the Supreme Court. It's important to remember who third parties are. It's a term of art in election law, but what does it mean? It just means civil society. It means individuals. It means unions. It means groups. It might mean the scary rich, but in the Canadian experience, for the most part, third parties that want to communicate during elections are mostly unions.

Some people, like Professor Tom Flanagan, have said, “Great. We want to curb those people's freedom of expression.” I actually happen to agree with Professor Flanagan's dim view of unions. I don't agree with his view of freedom of expression. I think that whether or not we like people, they should be free to communicate.

The caps on third party spending in the Canada Elections Act now and those that will be under Bill C-76 are very low. They are less than 2% of what political parties are allowed to spend.

By comparison, in New Zealand, which is actually ranked higher in the transparency international corruption rankings than Canada is—it pains me as a Canadian, but there it is—the spending caps are at about 7.5%. This is a less restrictive regime. It's still a very low cap. There is no danger that third parties will interfere with communications by political parties themselves, but it's a more permissive regime than the one under Bill C-76.

The last thing I will note, also in relation to third parties, are the thresholds. For registration it is $500. As soon as you spend $500, you're required to register. Once you spend $10,000, you're required to submit to auditing. These rules are bound to be a deterrent to freedom of expression. They are very low thresholds. There is no reasonable chance that somebody spending $500, or even $10,000, is going to swing an election. They, as I said, are deterrents to public participation. These should be raised.

I will give you the figures by way of comparison. In New Zealand, the registration threshold is at about $12,000 Canadian. The reporting threshold for expenses, not auditing but just the report, must be filed once you spend about $90,000 Canadian. The electoral commission can require an audit, but nobody is obliged to submit to one.

Again, New Zealand does not seem to have a huge political corruption problem. It would be an example to at least consider it, maybe hopefully follow, in providing more room for members of a civil society to express this.

Thank you. I'm looking forward to your questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I want to go back to Phoenix, because my life seems to revolve around Phoenix. Obviously, it's a big issue right now, and we've heard comments that it might be an election issue.

How do you think Bill C-76 is going to affect PSAC's ability to communicate to its members about, say, Phoenix being an election issue?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

My first question is for Ms. Nagy. Your testimony has been received, and from what I understand—I'm looking at a copy of the commissioner of Canada elections' compliance report in front of me—the compliance agreement was between Elections Canada and Dan Ryder, the official agent for the 2015 Green candidate.

I understand the compliance agreement clearly indicates that what occurred was deemed unintentional on the part of Mr. Ryder in his use of Green Party signs, and that, despite a complaint that a thorough investigation of almost two years by Elections Canada was undertaken.... I'm referring to information from the Canada elections commissioner to Mr. Ryder that in the end, the commissioner decided that the allegations were not supported by the available evidence and that, at that point in time, considerable resources had been expended already on the investigation. The commissioner felt that there was no reason to pursue this and that this person went into a compliance agreement with Elections Canada with regard to this.

I also understand that, based on the information that I have, you were aware of this agreement that had been very well communicated to the Green Party members in advance of the writ being dropped in August. The MOU signed by the Green Party membership regarding the agreement between the Liberal Party candidate as well as the Green Party candidate was something that was communicated very extensively to people. People were aware of the fact that this agreement had been put in place.

Even though you had some concerns, you yourself had, based on an email of September 14, 2015 to the Kelowna Green board, asked Elections Canada to confirm in writing if having generic GPC signs out with Liberal signs, given the underlying MOU, could get you in any hot water if any party wanted to charge you with inadvertently supporting the Liberal Party's campaign.

He had already clarified, as I believe someone did to you, that it was fine from Elections Canada's perspective if Liberal and Green signs appeared together because of our unique situation. I want to be extra sure that we can push back against criticism.

From what I understand, Elections Canada had communicated that this was fine by them, and maybe the rules need to be tweaked based on what happened, but at that time, from what I understand, you were instructed that it was fine to have both Green Party signs and Liberal Party signs at an event.

Subsequent to the election and a complaint, it was decided that a compliance agreement would be put in place and that it will be looked at going forward. Maybe that's the point of your testimony here today, to look into that, whether or not in such an agreement be put in place if it were to occur again in a subsequent election.

I wanted to clarify the record to make sure that we all understood that.

My next question is for Professor Norris.

Professor Norris, you talked about issues that you think we should address in Bill C-76. You talked about the legal framework, including mixed member proportional, gender quotas, cybersecurity threats, and participation.

Out of those that you talked about, in terms of Bill C-76, what would be the priority? We just heard from a previous panel, and cybersecurity is obviously something we're hearing a lot about right now. Obviously we all want higher participation rate, and I think in Australia, if I remember correctly, it's mandatory voting. Obviously, with mandatory voting, 90% is fantastic.

[Chris Aylward, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee for allowing us to appear today.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents 180,000 members. We are the largest union in the federal public service.

Bill C-76 proposes extensive changes that have a significant impact on our democratic process. We strongly support the amendments in the bill that will remove barriers to voting and make it more accessible.

My comments will focus on changes related to third parties.

Our usual election activity is to inform our members about issues and encourage them to exercise their political rights and to vote. We do this by communicating with them in a number of ways, including advertising. During the last federal election and in a number of previous elections, the Public Service Alliance of Canada registered as a third party.

Bill C-76 has not changed the definition of third party election advertising; however, the definition curtails our right to represent our members' interests during an election period. Messages we transmit that can be received or seen by the public, such as information posted on bulletin boards or included in flyers, are considered to be election advertising if they take a position on an issue that a registered party or candidate is associated with or if the message opposes a registered party.

I challenge you to think of an issue that affects Canadians and our members that cannot be associated with a party, leader, or candidate at some time or another. The vast majority of our members are employed by the federal government and by federal agencies controlled or regulated by the government, and we take on issues associated with registered parties on an ongoing basis. It is our role and responsibility to advance their interests and concerns, and our right to do so has been upheld by the courts.

The existing restrictions on third party advertising, the proposed changes to the election period, and the introduction of new pre-election periods deny our legitimate advocacy role. This is particularly crucial when governments attempt to prevent our members from speaking out on issues and to restrict their political rights and activities because they are government employees.

During the last federal election period, we were in the middle of bargaining with Treasury Board for approximately 100,000 members. When we demonstrated against the government's proposals, Elections Canada advised us that the messages on our picket signs and banners might be considered election advertising under the Elections Act. They were seen as transmitting a message to the public during an election period that could be seen as opposing a registered party or speaking out on an issue associated with a registered party—in this case, the previous governing party.

Bill C-76 proposes to extend similar although not identical restrictions during a new pre-election period. The difference is that advertising during the pre-election period excludes messages that take a position on an issue associated with political parties and their candidates or leaders; however, the restrictions could still be interpreted to put limits on what we can say publicly about positions being taken by our government employers.

I refer you to the landmark 1991 Supreme Court case of Lavigne and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. In that decision, the court affirmed the interconnected nature of political activity and union interests, or democratic unionism. The court said that many political activities, “be they concerned with the environment, tax policy, day-care or feminism, can be construed as related to the larger environment in which unions must represent their members”. Note that the court said “must represent their members” in this “larger environment”.

We are also concerned about the unnecessary burden the proposed legislation would put on unions to track and report all advertising expenses between elections. PSAC is a large organization, with 15 relatively autonomous components and over 1,000 locals; however, the third party provision treats us as a single entity. We would now be required to monitor all those parts in order to report expenses related to messages to the public amounting to $10,000 or more between an election and the pre-election period.

In conclusion, we ask the committee to review the proposed sections on third party advertising very carefully before proceeding with the bill so as not to affect the legitimate rights of unions to speak out on behalf of their members. We also ask you to consider splitting the bill and moving quickly to deal with the sections where there is general agreement and support, such as the sections that were originally contained in Bill C-33, and spend more time assessing the changes proposed by Bill C-76 before making other adjustments to the federal elections process.

Thank you for your time.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

My next question, if I have a few seconds left, is for Mr. Moscrop.

You talked a little bit about fake news and digital threats. I sit on the Standing Committee for National Defence, and we've done some interesting studies on hybrid warfare, fake news, Russia's attempts to infiltrate with fake news in Crimea in the Ukraine, and a lot of the misinformation campaigns that you're referring to. We've heard recently in the news here in Canada the likelihood of misinformation campaigns occurring in the next federal election.

Do you feel that Bill C-76 adequately prepares us for this new reality that we are facing? As you said, this generation wants news quickly. My own mother will call me up and say she that saw something on Facebook and that it must be true.

What do we do? People want information. They want it quickly. They're looking at sources online that maybe can't be verified, so what can we be doing, and does this piece of legislation move far enough in that regard?

[Kayleigh Erickson]

I'm not familiar with Bill C-76, but I can expand on what I'm talking about in terms of nomination races. It starts with your recruitment. I know, for example, that the Liberal Party of Canada has set voluntary internal targets, but has had issues in terms of being able to fulfill them. We need to be ensuring that we have enforcement mechanisms within parties, if it's going to be voluntary, to ensure they're reaching their targets in terms of having diverse candidates.

I will give an example in terms of nomination races and what that means in terms of eventual candidates. We know that women are likely to win in very diverse communities. We know that, in the 2015 election, for example, women running for the Liberals and Conservatives won less frequently than their male colleagues. I think it matters who you're recruiting, because that then translates into potentially who can be nominated, and that has significant impacts for the types of women who are being elected into politics.

I'll give an example of a solution. Recently New Brunswick released its first proactive strategy to increase women's representation, and it actually tied per-vote subsidies to the gender of the candidates who are being nominated. Not only does this encourage parties to run women, but it provides a real financial incentive to put them in winnable ridings, where they have the opportunity to actually get elected.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is great. Thank you so much to both witnesses for your presentation. Obviously, we have some different approaches, which is great. I always say in politics pick a lane, just get involved, and fight for your views. We have different paths to get to the same goal: to have a better Canada, a better society. Thank you both for your different opinions here.

Ms. Erickson, you spoke in your opening statement about nomination races and some barriers. Can you outline some of that for the committee? Also are you familiar with Bill C-76, the legislation that has just been submitted, and do you have any suggestions or comments related to that legislation?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Actually, if you recall, under the old guard Rhinoceros, 1990 was their last election, under Bryan Gold, if our guest can remember that, but probably not. He's a bit young. I ran that campaign. We came last, by the way. I've since crossed the floor, and things have been better since then.

That being said, Mr. Corriveau, you talked about many things, but can we go to Bill C-76 for just one moment? You believe in the limitations that we're putting on for third parties to get involved. By how many rubles would limitations be in your world?

[Sébastien Corriveau]

Okay. Take up your headphones. I will speak French also.

Ladies and gentlewomen, please turn on your cellphone and play Candy Crush; call your husband; reheat your dinner; text your lawyer; take a nap; take an emergency exit; close your eyes and stop listening: here comes the Dealer of the Rhinoceros Party of Canada. Hello.

Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Larry Bagnell, do you know that you used to be my member of Parliament? That was for three months in the summer of 2009, when I spent my summer in Whitehorse.

Dear committee, merci for welcoming me ici and now.

This is my first time appearing before a parliamentary committee and I think it is very appropriate to invite the leader of the Rhinoceros Party. Thank you. The members of the party and I do have good ideas at times.

It's always great to share them with you.

I would like to draw your attention to the public funding of political parties.

There is nothing about it in this bill. That was removed. The public funding of political parties was removed by the Stephen Harper government because he does not believe in corruption inside political parties.

It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who established public funding for political parties in 1974. The purpose was to fight corruption in political parties and in the awarding of public works contracts. Abolished by Mr. Mulroney, the public funding system was reinstated by Jean Chrétien after the sponsorship scandal.

I would like it back.

The Prime Minister of Canada lied to Canadians when he said 2015 would be the last election with the first-past-the-post electoral system.

Our nation still has an archaic electoral system inherited from when Great Britain was our overlord, MPs listened to their local populations, and political parties had no party line that it was mandatory to follow.

In 2008, the Green Party of Canada received almost one million votes, yet they had no elected MPs—zero, nobody. At the same time, the Conservatives got 5.2 million votes, which is only five times more votes, and they elected 143 members of Parliament.

You call Canada a democracy? How cute. Five members of Parliament were elected with less than 30% of the vote, 69 members of Parliament were elected with less than 40% of the vote, and, 60% of the members of Parliament—206 MPs—were elected with less than 50% of the votes in their ridings.

Bill C-76 is off the track: you forgot to talk about what really matters in our democracy.

I agree that we have to make sure no interest groups will buy advertisements right before the election. You are right when you say that no other countries should interfere in our electoral process—except Russia: I would like money from Russia.

You can't tell me that you lack time to implement an electoral reform that is right—and right now.

I know that is not true, however. You have decided to set aside this change. When the time came, you decided not to go ahead with it. It is the same as with climate change: one day we will wake up and it will be too late.

I know that the only thing I can really change today by coming here is the public funding of political parties. Let me end with that.

In the report of the Special Committee on Electoral Report tabled in December 2016, entitled “Strengthening Democracy in Canada: Principles, Process and Public Engagement for Electoral Reform”, the committee recommended in chapter 7, section G — g like government — that the per-vote subsidy and funding of political parties be reinstated.

It had been eliminated in 2015.

That same report states that: “ [...] the current system of individual donations to political parties is less equal, as donations vary greatly between Canadians of different socio-economic levels.”

Public funding makes Canadians feel that their vote counts.

Appearing before the committee, Ms. Melanee Thomas stated:

[...] internationally, most countries do have some form of public financing. It's broadly seen to be a good thing, because the political party is a key institution linking representative institutions and the voting public.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the former chief electoral officer of Canada, recommends that it be reinstated.

Thank you.

[Victoria Henry, Digital Rights Campaigner, Open Media Engagement Network]

Hi there. Thanks so much for having me here to discuss this issue.

I'm Victoria Henry. I'm a digital rights campaigner specializing in privacy issues with OpenMedia, which is a community-based organization committed to keeping the Internet open, affordable, and free of surveillance. The revelations stemming from the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandal have highlighted the extent to which our privacy laws are failing to protect the privacy of ordinary people in Canada and how this can influence elections.

While Bill C-76 makes some positive steps to protect the integrity of elections and safeguard our democracy, the omission of political parties from privacy legislation is a concerning gap, and that's the issue I'd like to talk about today.

People around the world are increasingly concerned, of course, about how their personal information is gathered, used, and stored. More than 10,000 people in Canada have recently signed on to a letter asking for reform of our privacy laws. The key demand in that letter is for Canada's political parties to be subject to federal privacy laws.

The existing privacy exemptions for political parties have left many Canadians convinced that the current system is not working in our best interests. We need guarantees that our government's political interests will not take precedent over our privacy and our security.

A national online omnibus survey conducted from May 7 to May 14 of this year revealed that a large majority—72% of Canadians—supported changing the law so that political parties follow the same privacy rules as private companies. In fact, only 3% support the status quo policy of fewer restrictions for political parties. This polling also showed that support for extending PIPEDA to political parties has broad support from partisans of all stripes. I can provide the full polling results, as well as the letter from Canadians, to the committee members with my notes.

These views are supported by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in his testimony to this committee. The commissioner stated that information about our political views is highly sensitive and therefore worthy of privacy protection. Because of this, simply asking political parties to have their own privacy policies without defining the standards that must be applied is not enough.

For example, the standards set by Bill C-76 do not include measures such as limiting collection of personal information to what is required; obtaining consent when collecting, using, or disclosing personal information; or collecting information by fair and lawful means. Because of this, the Privacy Commissioner calls for internationally recognized privacy principles, not policies defined by parties, to be included in domestic law, and for an independent third party to have the authority to verify compliance. We support this call as well as the recommended amendments put forward by the commissioner's office.

The recent scandal clearly demonstrates how weak privacy safeguards can have serious effects that go beyond the commercial realm. With federal elections due in 2019, we need to safeguard our democracy and protect against undue influence stemming from online privacy violations. Many ministers have indicated that they're willing to strengthen our privacy laws. The status quo is at odds with the wishes of most people in Canada, whose confidence in our political processes is undermined by the singling out of political parties when it comes to privacy.

On behalf of the vast majority of people in Canada who support stronger privacy rules for political parties, I'm asking you today to strengthen the protection of our democratic institutions and to make these changes now.

Thank you.