This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Karina Gould Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
What was her response in regard to the tools that were rolled out in the U.S. comparative to the legislation that was presented in Bill C-76? What was her response to those tools, and did she mention if there was any gap between those two items?
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
The minister and her staff were aware that you would not be able to comply as Bill C-76 was laid out. What was her response to you at that time, when you indicated that your organization would not be able to comply with the legislation as it was presented?
By the time Bill C-76 was amended to include the new online platforms provisions, the witness list unfortunately had already closed. As a consequence, there wasn't an opportunity to discuss that with members of the committee.
We discussed it with individual members of the committee to express some of the concerns at the time, and then certainly raised it when it was at the Senate justice committee.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
That's pretty significant.
When you went to the clause-by-clause process of Bill C-76, I'll going to assume that was in the House procedures committee, PROC. Is that correct?
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
It's fair to say, then, that you were not consulted by the minister or by ministerial staff until Bill C-76 came to the clause-by-clause procedure, until it became public.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
When Bill C-76 was being drafted, did your organization have the opportunity to meet with the minister?
As Jason touched upon just now—and he touched upon the Senate, when they were considering the amendments to Bill C-76—our systems, and the range of advertising tools we provide to advertisers, are much broader than Facebook's. I can't speak to Facebook's decision in this regard.
I can say that we spent an intensive amount of time this year trying to evaluate how we would implement changes that would meet the obligations of Bill C-76. Because of the breadth of the advertising tools we provide—and Jason identified the number of different ways that touches upon our publishing partners and advertisers—we reluctantly came to the decision that we would have to not accept political advertising this year.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I have $8.94 billion in income, just in Q4 of 2018. We have a company that is raking in billions of dollars, and holds itself to a higher standard than Facebook, on a number of different issues. Yet, Facebook is able to implement the rules under Bill C-76.
Why can't Google?
In line with this, we fully support improving transparency in political advertising. Last year we voluntarily introduced enhanced verification requirements for U.S. political advertisers, in-ad disclosures for election ads, and a new transparency report and political ad library for the U.S. mid-terms. We deployed similar tools for the Indian and EU parliamentary elections. While we had intended to introduce similar measures in Canada, unfortunately the new online platforms provisions introduced in Bill C-76 do not reflect how our online advertising systems or transparency reports currently function. It was simply not feasible for us to implement the extensive changes that would have been necessary to accommodate the new requirements in the very short time we had before the new provisions took effect.
First, the definition of “online platform” includes any “Internet site or Internet application” that sells advertising space “directly or indirectly”, and imposes the new registry obligation on any platform that meets certain minimum traffic thresholds. This captures not only social media or large online advertising platforms, but also most national and regional news publishers, virtually all multicultural publications, and most popular ad-supported websites and apps, making its application extraordinarily broad.
Second, the provisions specifically require that each site or app maintain their own registry. Unlike some companies, Google provides a wide array of advertising products and services. Advertisers can purchase campaigns through Google that will run on both Google sites and/or third party publisher sites. These systems are automated. Often there is no direct relationship between the advertiser and the publisher. While the page is loading, the site will send a signal that a user meeting certain demographic criteria is available to be advertised to. The advertisers will then bid for the opportunity to display an ad to that user. The winning advertiser's ad server displays the winning ad in the user's browser. This all happens within fractions of a second. The publisher does not immediately know what ad was displayed and does not have immediate access to the ad that was shown. To accommodate the new provisions, we would have had to build entirely new systems to inform publishers that a regulated political ad had displayed and then deliver a copy of that ad and the requisite information to each publisher for inclusion in their own registry. This was simply not achievable in the very short time before the provisions took effect.
Third, the provisions require the registry to be updated the same day as the regulated political ad is displayed. This effectively means that the registry must be updated in real time, as a regulated political ad that was displayed at 11:59 p.m. would need to be included in the registry before midnight. Due to the complexities of our online advertising systems, we simply could not commit to such a turnaround time.
A final complication is that “election advertising” includes advertising “taking a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated”. These are generally referred to as “issue ads”. Issue ads are highly contextual and notoriously difficult to identify reliably, especially as the definition is vague and will change and evolve during the course of a campaign. Given these challenges, we generally prohibit this class of advertising in countries where it's regulated, such as our recent prohibition in France.
Colin McKay Head, Public Policy and Government Relations, Google Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you today.
I'd like to start off with an observation. First and foremost, we would like to clarify that we feel there is an inaccuracy in the language of the motion initiating this study. Specifically, the motion invited us to explain our “decision not to run ads during the upcoming election” and our “refusal to comply with Bill C-76”. To be clear, our decision to not accept regulated political advertising is not a refusal to comply with Bill C-76 and the Canada Elections Act, but rather was specifically taken in order to comply.
Free and fair elections are fundamental to democracy, and we at Google take our work to protect elections and promote civic engagement very seriously. On cybersecurity, we have developed several products that are available to political campaigns, elections agencies and news organizations free of charge. These include, as I've mentioned to you before, Project Shield, which uses Google's infrastructure to protect organizations from denial of service attacks and our advanced protection program, which safeguards accounts of those at risk of targeted attacks by implementing two-factor authentication, limiting data sharing across apps and providing strong vetting of account recovery requests. These are over and above the robust protections we've already built into our products.
We have also undertaken significant efforts to combat the intentional spread of disinformation across search, news, YouTube and our advertising systems. This work is based on three foundational pillars: making quality count, fighting bad actors and giving people context.
I'll turn to my colleague.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I certainly appreciate Mr. Bittle's comments with regard to the discussion and evaluation of topics during Bill C-76. Unfortunately, I was not here for the bulk of it, but I feel as though that was really with regard to the legislation at hand. It was an opportunity to reflect upon, truly, the experts with regard to what I believe is the greatest challenge and the greatest threat facing our democratic institutions in the coming year. I don't think that is outrageous, outlandish or an exaggeration.
I want to be sure that the government is very clear on what it's doing and the message it is sending to Canadians in rejecting such a study. It's very grave. It's very serious. In our committee, this is potentially the greatest responsibility we have to the Canadian public, coming up within the short time frame. To reject a study on this is truly to do a rejection of our due diligence to the integrity of the election.
As a member of Parliament and as a shadow minister for democratic institutions, I don't want to accept that responsibility, that lack of due diligence and evaluation, so I would really ask that the government consider the message that it is sending to Canadians about its seriousness with regard to the integrity of the election in rejecting this motion.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank Ms. Kusie for bringing this motion forward. However, we're in the last bit, the final stretch, and we had already gone through these matters. We had extended discussions and debates related to our elections on many occasions, but especially in our consideration of Bill C-76.
I know a lot of that time was filled up with debate unrelated to the matter itself and protecting Canadians, and there was an extended filibuster on that. That would have been an excellent opportunity to extend our study on that, but it's late in the game.
I know there's work already being done by the ethics committee on topics related to this. We've already discussed it and I don't see us getting into this at this particular stage.
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank all my colleagues in this House for taking the opportunity to speak to this bill. I do not agree with all the information I have heard, but I appreciate the fact that we have had the debate.
I must take umbrage with some of the arguments that have been used against this piece of legislation. We have heard opposition MPs say that this bill is extrajudicial and would cause problems and that we cannot enforce this law outside our borders. That is simply not true. This is actually about registered third parties inside Canada and whether they accept money from overseas. That is a simple thing to do. There is no extrajudicial or extraterritorial component to this piece of legislation, because it deals with the Canada Elections Act and registered third parties in Canada.
As for the penalties, I have heard it suggested that there is no penalty section. There is a catch-all penalty provision in every piece of legislation. There does not need to be. It is just a red herring thrown in. There do not need to be any specific penalties laid out because the general catch-all provisions in the Canada Elections Act for penalties are already there.
Speakers talked about whether Bill C-76 addresses this problem. It clearly does not. Bill C-76 does not address this problem, because it actually continues to allow third parties to receive foreign funding from foreign entities, be they state actors, individuals, corporations or other third party organizations registered as charitable organizations elsewhere in the world. What it requires is that if that money is actually used for an election purpose, an investigation has to be conducted by the election officials. At that particular time, one cannot sort out the molecules of where the money actually came from, just as one cannot sort out the molecules of what oil patch the gasoline in one's car came from. One cannot sort that stuff out at that point.
Bill C-76 actually allows backdoor financing from state actors, corporations that are not registered or are not conducting business in Canada, individuals, foundations and organizations to influence Canadian elections, especially in election advertising in the pre-writ and writ periods. That is the period leading up to an election and the period of the election itself.
Why on earth would we have laws that say that only Canadian individuals are allowed to donate to political parties for the purpose of an election and then allow unions and corporate interests and other interests outside our country to fund third parties during an election in Canada to change the results, the results, by the way, that organizations like Leadnow proudly display in their campaigns?
Is Leadnow, as a Canadian organization, allowed to engage in the politics of Canada? Of course it is. All my bill is saying is that if it makes the choice to take that money from outside Canada's borders, it cannot use it anymore. It cannot be allowed to participate in the election game, because it is not fair. If it cannot convince Canadians to donate to its cause and take part in what it is trying to do, it should not be allowed to justify the ends by means of getting money from outside Canada's borders.
It is not just small groups of individuals at bake sales. Leadnow, Tides and others are using things like the Yellowstone to Yukon conservation initiative or things like the PNCIMA initiative to have massive amounts of foreign money coming into British Columbia and the eastern slopes of Alberta to block pipeline projects. It is disingenuous for the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to say that it is a couple of people and a bake sale trying to stop a pipeline. It is simply not true. It is maybe one story out of 100 about foreign money influencing that pipeline project.
This bill, Bill C-406, is a good piece of legislation. It basically says that if one is going to get involved in the election, one should know in advance that if one takes money from outside the country, one will not be allowed to play in the game anymore, because it is cheating. It is cheating because elections belong to Canadians. Only Canadians should be allowed, with their opinions, with their information and with their money, to decide the fate of our country.
One can only assume, then, why other political parties in here would not have the patriotic sense of duty to ensure that our elections are free, fair and only conducted in the realm of the Canadian intellectual space, the economic space and the debate space we have during these elections. One can only assume that if members vote against this legislation, it is because they are willing to use any means possible to justify whatever ends they want. That means that they are willing to sell Canada's soul down the road for a little bit of money to pay for an election campaign.
Every time the rules are circumvented, trust and confidence are eroded. If we are going to have trust and confidence in our electoral process, we should send a signal loud and clear to the Canadian people that we are not putting up with it anymore by voting in favour of Bill C-406.
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in support of this bill from my colleague, the member for Red Deer—Lacombe. We are getting toward the end of the second hour on this bill. I want to take a few moments and just engage and maybe deal with some of the strange things that have been said and that have come up in this debate, even so far this morning.
First, I always find it a bit ironic or strange when members of this House rise on a bill and say, “Well, we sort of agree” or “We certainly think the goal of the bill is good or at least has some merit”, but then they go on to talk about a whole series of things that are not related to the subject matter of the bill, complaining that the bill does not address these other things.
Let us be clear about the purpose of this bill. This bill's purpose is to get foreign money out of politics in Canada. That is what this bill was tabled to do. That is the question that we are going to be voting on in this House.
We may talk about a variety of other things. We might want to have a debate on another day about the relative power of Canadian businesses. That is a separate topic. It is not a reason to vote against a bill, if members believe that the bill addresses an actual problem in our country.
For a member to rise and say, “I agree with the member for Red Deer—Lacombe that we should not have foreign money in politics, but I am going to vote against his bill because it does not address Canadian funding by lobbyists for a particular policy position”, that is not a good reason to vote against this bill.
I would encourage all members of this House to support this bill for what it does and not hold against the bill other things that members would like to see another bill address.
I want to go back to some of the truly ridiculous things that the member for St. Catharines said, and there is no way to say it any more politely than that, to somehow suggest that the Conservative Party is in cahoots with the Koch brothers or the NRA. These are absurd conspiracy theory proposals from the other side.
What is not a conspiracy theory is that there are foreign entities that attempt to influence the outcome of Canadian elections. This is not a conspiracy. These organizations brag about their success on their own websites. That there are these groups out there, like the Tides Foundation, trying to influence the outcome of the Canadian election cannot be characterized as some Conservative conspiracy theory. Of course they are trying to influence the outcome of the Canadian election. That is exactly what they say they are doing, and they take credit for their success in doing so, on their own websites. I understand this has changed a little now, thanks to the work of Vivian Crouse, who has sort of untangled the money train on these matters. They talked about the Harper project and actually bragged about how they targeted specific ridings and sent money into Canadian third parties, like Leadnow, among others, which then sent canvassers into the ridings.
My friend, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, talked about advertising not being everything, and indeed he is correct. The ground game is very important, too. These groups supplied ground game to candidates who they thought would be most likely to defeat the previous government's candidate in that riding. They were successful. They have boasted of their success on their own websites to generate further support from foreigners to support their initiatives in Canada.
How can this be a conspiracy? These people are shouting from the rooftops that this is what their agenda and goals are: to landlock Alberta's oil and gas and prevent Conservatives from winning elections in Canada.
This bill is very simple. It would prevent third parties in Canada from participating in advertising if they accept foreign money. It is plain and simple. It would go beyond and actually fix a problem that Liberals have paid lip service to in debate but that their bill, Bill C-76, would not solve.
Under Bill C-76, there is no ability for Elections Canada to audit and ensure the segregation of funds in order to ensure a third party that participates in advertising and accepts foreign money does not use the money from the foreign source for that purpose. At best, Bill C-76 is lip service to the problem, which the Liberals acknowledge in their speeches but not with their votes in the chamber to support the bill from the member for Red Deer—Lacombe.
Again, it is disingenuous to say that one is concerned about the problem of foreign third party funding of election activity in Canada and then to not support this member's bill.
To the more technical points, the member for St. Catharines noted the time and date when this bill was tabled and the issues around Bill C-76 and how it was amended at committee since then. That is not a reason to vote against the bill. Vote for this bill and get it to committee, and if there are some incongruities that have to be addressed to make it compatible with the correct changes necessary to Bill C-76, that is what committee work is for.
I am going to end it at that and perhaps allow other members to speak on this bill. I urge all members to vote for this bill, and let us get it to committee and get a proper regime in place to keep foreign funding out of elections.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, I begin this debate with a slight bias, because the author is a friend from Red Deer—Lacombe and my wife is from Red Deer, so initially I started off wanting to support the bill, because all good things come from Red Deer, generally speaking. This might unfortunately be the exception to that rule. I am unable to support the bill, for a couple of important reasons.
I hope my Conservative friends who worry about foreign interference can understand how foreign interference, in its full measure, impacts our democracy and how it fully involves itself in the hearts and minds of Canadians over such important issues. Big pharma is certainly involved, as are multinational oil companies, the banking sector and so forth.
Let us start with what this bill attempts to do, which is to minimize or eliminate the effects of foreign money on Canadian elections. It is a laudable goal, in part accomplished by the government's much-delayed and much-amended election bill, Bill C-76, yet there is a conspiracy the bill is trying to address, which is the following.
As the former prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, said, there are foreign-funded radicals. These foreign foundations, particularly in the United States, all have environmental agendas, “agendas” being a neutral word I suppose, to try to fight climate change. The conspiracy rolls out that these foreign foundations then seek to block oil pipelines to China in order to keep oil at a cheaper rate for American consumers. To follow that again, foundations that are established to fight climate change and bring about environmental initiatives are fighting for lower oil prices for American consumers.
There are two fundamental flaws in this conspiratorial logic, if we want to call it logic. The first is that Americans are net exporters of oil. The second is, why would somebody fighting climate change seek to have lower oil prices? Under this conspiracy theory, the same groups that advocate for a price on carbon and for less use of oil in our society are advocating for more and cheaper oil, going only to the United States and not to China. The conspiracy falls apart almost immediately, because those who are advocating, Ms. Krause and others, are also funded not by foreign foundations but by oil companies. They claim to be unbiased, neutral and just good Canadians, with their hearts on their sleeves, who are talking about what is important to them and their families while taking money from oil companies all along the way.
Let us look at what the bill attempts to do. I would argue that there is a flaw in the writing of the bill, in that it addresses only political advertising. Advertising is an important part of what happens in campaigns, but certainly we as elected people know that a campaign manifests itself in part through advertising on social media or newspapers and radio, but a large part of what happens in campaigning is door to door, community events and educational material. All of that is curiously excluded from this bill, and I do not fully understand why it would be absent.
The most dramatic flaw is that the bill only seeks to go after foreign foundations but exempts all companies that “carry on business in Canada”. One would think that this must mean a Canadian business, wholly owned and operated within Canada, maybe with subsidiaries in other countries. However, that is not actually the definition of “business” under the act. A business is anybody who carries on a business in Canada. That can be a single worker in a single office of a multinational pharmaceutical company, oil company, bank or whatever. That qualifies under this bill to be exempted. That business, which is carrying on business in Canada, is able to donate to advertising and education campaigns. One might ask why they are going after the charities.
If we recall the previous government, I must take umbrage with what the last colleague from the Conservatives said. I believe he was criticizing environmental groups for not being critical enough of foreign governments, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and whatnot. This is coming from the same government that sold Saudi Arabia tanks, light armoured vehicles that were weaponized and used to suppress democratic rights in Yemen. Therefore, it is a bit much for the Conservatives to say the environmental groups are not doing enough to criticize Saudi Arabia, when this is coming from the same Conservatives who sold it tanks. Sure, criticism is warranted and necessary, but enabling the Saudis to kill people seems to me a higher order of severity and certainly shows itself to be hypocrisy, coming from members of the opposition who were then government.
Here is a fundamental problem that I have, and we have seen this on the ground in northern B.C., which I represent. We have had many debates over pipelines. At one point, we had 23 LNG pipelines proposed across my region. We had one significant diluted bitumen pipeline proposed to go from Alberta all the way through two coastlines and 1,100 streams and rivers into Kitimat, down the Douglas Channel, allegedly, and then off to China, supposedly. Therefore, we have had our fair share of debate. We have had our share of environmental conversations, the jobs-versus-economy/jobs-and-economy debate. We have seen it on the ground.
The example I will use is the one closest to us, which was this entire debate around Enbridge northern gateway. This is a debate that occurred in my region of the world for about a dozen years, at least. It started to heat up and had a focal point in the long campaign over a plebiscite, a vote that was being conducted in the district of Kitimat, in the city of Kitimat itself, where the terminus was meant to be located. This was the first time in Canadian history that I am aware of when a community held a referendum or a vote on a major industrial project: Do we want this oil pipeline, and the terminus and tankers associated with it, to go ahead, yes or no?
For those who have not been to Kitimat, British Columbia, this is a town where the district side was built entirely for industrial purposes. It was initiated some 60 years ago as a planned community by Alcan, now Rio Tinto. It was a planned community to support a smelter. The Province of British Columbia essentially gave the company a river to dam and then use as very cheap power to smelt aluminum and create an entire industrial complex. Therefore, if there is any town in British Columbia, if not in Canada, that is pro-industry, one would say it is Kitimat. It has had many large industrial-type projects and it is quite proud of them.
This was the vote being held. On one side was a small group of local volunteers called the Douglas Channel Watch. These would be, in the conspiracy world of some of my colleagues, the foreign-funded folks. The grand total the group spent on the referendum was $875.
On the other side was Enbridge northern gateway, a subsidiary of Enbridge but the same company. It had raised, follow the numbers, $100 million to support and lobby for its pipeline, from 10 different upstream and downstream oil companies, many of them Chinese. That is $100 million to promote one pipeline. It was not to build it. It was not for construction costs, engineering, science or anthropological work, but just for promotion. Leading up to the referendum, the company was flying in employees from all over the place. They took out advertisements in every single newspaper along our highway, all the way through to Alberta, talking about how important this vote was, even though the vote was taking place only in one town. There were full-page ads, colour ads, radio advertisements, and on and on it went.
Therefore, if anyone is talking about an unfair conversation about a Canadian democratic choice, this was it. There were millions of dollars being spent on one side from foreign sources, which would remain legal under this bill that the Conservatives have proposed. On the other side, there was a locally funded charity that was having bake sales in order to have flyers so the organizers could go door to door and talk to people about the vote that was coming.
Despite all of that, the referendum passed against this pipeline, the terminus and the tankers, because the people in Kitimat said that where they live, a diluted bitumen pipeline and the supertankers associated with it, sailing down the Douglas Channel performing three 90-degree turns through some of the worst and most dangerous water in North America out to China, is not a good proposal for them, and that the risk versus benefit was not worth it. Therefore, they took the vote despite the lopsided campaign that had been initiated.
If the Conservatives actually want to get at the heart of this, and we think it is laudable to try to distance ourselves, remove ourselves, innoculate ourselves from foreign influence when we are having a democratic election, referendum or general election of any kind, we agree. However, it has to be equal to both sides. We cannot simply go after environmental groups because Conservatives just do not like them, meanwhile turning a blind eye to the corporate sector, which has vastly larger sums of money available and has deep interests that go beyond a single election and a single referendum into many decades.
We would encourage our Conservative colleagues to come to the fulsome debate and level the playing field in our debates. Let us shut off all foreign influence, absolutely, but let us do it on behalf of all Canadians, not just on behalf of those we happen to like.
Last thing, the Conservatives I know in Alberta, and Albertans in general, are not victims. They are good, hard-working people. This bill points to them as somehow being victims of some foreign influence.