Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2014

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I can't move away any further and still be part of this.

NDP-46 is an amendment to insert into the clause a proposed new section 348.2 that in summary takes care of many of the issues that, bit by bit, some of the amendments from the NDP and primarily from the Liberals and the Greens have been trying to accomplish. It basically sets out that calling service providers—who are often called robocall firms, but may also provide live voice call services—have to file with the CRTC a list of all telephone numbers that were called as well as a copy of each script and recording.

I'll repeat that. They have to file a list of all telephone numbers called as well as a copy of each script and recording. Phone numbers are nowhere mentioned in the new provisions. The Chief Electoral Officer appeared before us and said that they need to be. The fact of having to chase down the numbers called under a contract between a calling service provider and a party, for example, would seem to make no sense, if you could simply say that you have to retain these phone numbers and also convey them. That's what filing with the CRTC means.

The scripts and recordings simply refer to the fact that these have to be retained. But at the moment they don't have to be sent to the CRTC. To go back to Mr. Christopherson's good point and my earlier point, it was that if the CRTC—although this has now been voted down, let's just hope that the CRTC has longer retention policies than one, three, or even five years—ends up with documents or recordings or phone numbers in its hands, there is less chance that they won't be found at the stage of compliance and investigation. So we want those sent to the CRTC as well under the system. The calling service providers themselves then have to keep them for five years.

The next provision does exactly the same thing. It mirrors the previous one, but it makes the burden on every person, group, or third party—and person or group includes parties—a bit less than that for the calling service provider. This is their business, so five years makes sense; but for everybody else it would be three years. However, there was a provision requested by the Chief Electoral Officer, which is that although they must keep copies of the scripts and recordings for three years, if they are requested by the commissioner to keep them for up to five years, they have to do so.

So this is a parallel structure involving phone numbers, scripts, and audio recordings, all having to be sent to the CRTC. The calling service providers have to keep them for five years; for everybody else, it is three years, with the option for the commissioner to ask that it be extended to five.

That's the structure of the amendment. I don't think it could be any more obvious how it both fits within the scheme but also enhances and fills some gaps. What are those gaps, again? They are that phone numbers, audio recordings, and scripts do not have to be sent to the CRTC under the government's proposal. Also, phone numbers don't even have to be retained by anybody.

That is the purpose of this amendment, and I think I moved it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay. That was amendment NDP-46.

Mr. Christopherson, do you wish to speak on that one?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I just want to underscore the points made and introduce a couple of new thoughts. Given the fact that this material is not just being kept for interest's sake, it could ultimately be evidence in potential criminal charges. If it's potential evidence in a court proceeding, why would we take the risk and leave it in private hands, given that we're talking about digital information that can be sent so easily? It's not like it's onerous or expensive or back in the day when it had to be all paper. It's potential evidence in court cases being kept in private hands, yet almost the push of a button would guarantee that that information remains in the public domain by virtue of being with the CRTC.

There are a number of other benefits, Chair.

Number one, the procedure for getting the information, for accessing it and releasing it, would become standardized so that once the first request came in to the CRTC, they would then, if they haven't already, put together the policy and the procedures whereby they could and/or would release the information. After that, every request would just follow the same standard, the same policy of the CRTC, and we have the added benefit that that policy can be looked at by the public because the CRTC is in the public domain. Not only that, if you think conversely that that same information resides with all these multiple, private entities, the ability to get information in a timely fashion...especially since there's no power to compel any kind of evidence that the Chief Electoral Officer has been asking for. So this really important, critical evidence is in the hands of a multitude of private entities, and each one may or may not be the easiest to work with in terms of responding to requests for information. So, at best, we could end up with a patchwork, where some give the information in its entirety and some don't. Some refuse to give it, and we have to go through a whole procedure. Others are dragging their heels. All these problems are quite legitimate and can come up, and they're all avoidable. It's all of that, including the issue I raised earlier about a company being structured just for the election, performing this function, and then wrapping up after the election. There's no means under the law to get that information.

So, all of this information is being left deliberately in the hands of private individuals and private companies, yet it's public information. We're actually making laws that force them to give that information. So this amendment just makes all the sense in the world. With a push of a button, that information is transferred over to the CRTC. There it is in the public domain. It's accessible, it's transparent, and everything's fine. We avoid all those other concerns, including anybody who has tried to set up a front organization. It wouldn't be a front. It would be a real organization, a real numbered company, and then it just evaporates six months after the election.

All those concerns, Chair, every one of them is dealt with by adopting this motion.

So, if the government is serious about wanting to make sure there's a trail so that officials can go back and confirm that everything was done according to the rules—but that trail could be disrupted if we leave it the way it is—we could correct all of that with one motion. We could make sure that that information is there should it be requested afterwards. If they don't support this, then, again, one has to be suspect, and history will tell. We'll just see what happens after the next election, and we will see if they don't support this now how this measure being in place would avoid those potentials. I'm willing to bet they're going to be there. We won't know for sure till it happens, but we could be super safe and super sure if we just pass this motion.

So I put it to the government that if they are serious and sincere about wanting to actually have this information, this potential evidence accessible after the election, then the only thing that makes any sense is to put in a law that says they have to push the button that sends the information into the public domain, and then the goal the government says they want to achieve, can be, with the guarantee.

Right now, like a lot of things, it sounds good, but the end result may be very different.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's all I have on my list.

So on NDP-46, I am calling the question.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

A recorded vote, please....

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We move on to Liberal-33. It's fairly similar.

Mr. Simms.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Is this either similar or identical to NDP-43?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Even NDP-49, they're very similar but they're....

Sorry, NDP-43...?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

NDP-43, I said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It was not moved.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Oh, in lieu of this. All right. I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I'll make this very brief, then.

I so move that LIB-33 amend line 14 on page 45, for those who want to check it. “The calling service provider, person or group—or third party”—I'll draw your attention to proposed paragraph (a)—“at the request of the [CRTC], file with the Commission a list of all the telephone numbers that were called under the relevant section;” and “keep the list for one year after the end of the election period.”

I certainly do feel that this goes a long way to cutting down, curbing the behaviour that we saw. I'm not pointing any fingers or naming any names, but I certainly feel that this goes a long way in curbing that nefarious activity that we witnessed a while ago. So I hope that everyone gives us their support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

On LIB-33, hearing no further comment, all those in favour?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings)

On PV-49....

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A good part of my amendment is very similar to the one that was just defeated, but it has additional clauses that are worth describing.

As you can tell, the goal here, and again these were recommendations from a number of witnesses, certainly the Chief Electoral Officer and Democracy Watch, and a few others, I believe, calling for the preservation of the telephone numbers that were called as an integral part of keeping track of the use of these kinds of campaign tools, especially if they're going to be misused. It would be a very good way to check, for instance, if it was a legitimate call or an illegitimate call, based on robocall servers having a list of the telephone numbers. If a telephone number was called that was never on that list, you'd have a pretty good sense you're looking for someone else.

But the second part of my amendment also deals with the commissioner having the ability to...and it is part of Elections Canada's brief at the bottom of page 6. There should be a mechanism not involving a court order for the commissioner to obtain access to call scripts or recordings, or to request that they be preserved beyond one year if a court order is anticipated. This particular provision that I'm putting forward is actually modelled on something that may look familiar to government members on the other side. It's actually modelled on Bill C-13's preservation demand provisions in the online bullying bill, to ensure that there can be a request that material be preserved before it might be destroyed in the ordinary course of business.

So I think I've probably given you enough details on this, Mr. Chair. It does make the system more robust. More critical information is preserved, and it is also more accessible to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who without having to go to court for a court order, can just ask the companies that have that material in their possession to retain it and preserve it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Anything further on PV-49?

Hearing none, I'll call the question.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 77 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 78)

Government-22....

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I so move.

Before I speak to G-22, I would also let the opposition parties know they should have copies of a further amendment that we are proposing, which I had given everyone. It's 351.2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's what number?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It concerns a proposed new section 351.2. I'm sorry if we have additional.... I thought they were....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have a new amendment called 39.1.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Did you say 39.1?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Do we have additional copies?

[A voice]

No, we don't have that one.