Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2018

[Marc Mayrand]

Does it?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I want to ask you about what your successor has called “unusual”, which is the idea of putting together an implementation plan prior to the legislation being passed in the House of Commons or through Parliament. I want to hear your thoughts on that. Would you also find that unusual?

[Marc Mayrand]

We always prefer to work with the final legislation, of course, but in some contexts...and that's not new. The minute a bill is tabled, Elections Canada does a very detailed analysis. They come to this committee and propose mostly technical changes to make sure it works. They also start looking at what it means for Elections Canada and for electors, candidates, and parties. We need to think about how these handbooks will be modified. That part does begin very early, as soon as legislation is tabled, but—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

It's understandable, obviously, that any time any legislation would affect any organization, they're going to look at it to see how it's going to play out if it's passed.

[Marc Mayrand]

Exactly, yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I suppose, though, to go beyond looking at it and determining in what kinds of directions you would need to go, maybe that's where it would get a little unusual. What would your past experience have been with that, in terms of how far you would have gone in that?

[Marc Mayrand]

You progress with the certainties as certainties progress regarding the bill.

We were, we are, and I'm sure Elections Canada still is very cautious about spending public funds on something that is not yet the law. Again, it's part of managing risk in our business. We also need to be ready to implement legislation, the will of Parliament. Sometimes we don't have too much time to do it. As much preparatory work as can be done normally would be done.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, and I suspect that probably in this situation that is compounded by the fact that the government did take so long. I think you had even cautioned that this legislation would be needed prior to the time that it was. Of course, your successor has also done that, so that obviously is a compounding factor here as well.

I guess that would actually have an impact on the next thing I want to ask you about as well. You talked a bit about the foreign funding, that you feel, obviously, that this legislation doesn't really address the problem in its entirety, for sure. You mentioned the idea of the commingling of funds. You talked about collusion. I wonder if you could elaborate a bit more on both of those things.

Before you do, I wonder if you could just tell me something. You mentioned very honestly that you feel that probably some of the things you feel would be needed wouldn't be possible because of the late date we're at, at this point, prior to the next election. I'm just wondering. Obviously you had these concerns when you were the CEO as well. Is this something that you urged the government at that time to look at and to deal with? If so, why do you think it wasn't done?

[Marc Mayrand]

On the issue of foreign funds in our system, again, we had a regime in place for a very long period, and the issue truly had not come up. As I mentioned in my remarks, this is an issue that certainly has developed significantly since the last election. My point in my remarks was that the bill tries to address the issue. If the concern is about the commingling or the source of funds, you would probably need to look at a contribution regime. It could be similar to what exists for political entities, but I think serious questions would need to be asked. Given the third party's constitutional rights, do you impose the same controls on sources and impose the same amounts or limits?

I'm afraid that right now we're out of time to fix that before the next GE. I'm sorry to say that, but if it's a real concern, I don't know how this could be effectively addressed to assure that the intentions are carried through and ensure that it doesn't have negative side impacts that generate all sorts of court disputes. That's why I'm reserved on this one.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Understood.

That being said, it's always wise for us to know what would be ideal, and whether it's possible or not is something we have to look at as well. If it's not something that's possible now because the government has waited so long, then maybe we'd look at it in the future as well.

What are your thoughts in that regard? It sounds as though this is where you're leading, but I'll just ask very specifically. Obviously, in the case of political parties it's only individuals who can donate, so foreign individuals cannot, in fact, donate to a candidate or a political party in our system. Obviously that differs for these third parties. Foreign entities can in fact donate, even in unlimited amounts. Is it your opinion that this may be something that should be looked at to harmonize that? In other words, should foreign funding not be able to go to these third party groups, to treat them the same as other entities within the political system and the political parties? Also, there's the idea of contribution limits for political purposes. What are your thoughts on those two things?

[Marc Mayrand]

There are a few things.

Bill C-76 prohibits foreign contributions. The problem is that third party entities receive funds from various sources, and those sources lose their character as they get commingled in the general revenues of the third party. That is one aspect. Bill C-76 prohibits contributions but does not address the commingling.

Personally, I am of the view that if third parties, specifically in the context of a short electoral period and a short pre-writ period, want to run political campaigns, they should be governed around generally the same principles as other participants in the system. This is recognizing that third parties are distinct, with a purpose other than to achieve office—in fact, they don't—but still, if they wish to participate in the campaign, fine, but they should be subject to a regime that limits their influence proportionate to the message they want carried.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

And now it's Mr. Cullen's turn.

my red-eye partner.

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

Your French is good, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Naturally.

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

Mr. Mayrand, it's truly a pleasure to see you again.

I'll start with the thing we left off with there. From your estimation, and it sounds like from those of many others, it may be too late in the process to do something significant on the third party contributions and the foreign influence. I lament that, because I think Canadians and our Canadian political system might be a bit naive about the interests of outside groups, other governments, in terms of trying to influence our elections.

Would you agree with that assessment, that Canadians previously...? Maybe Brexit and maybe the Trump election have changed our perspective a bit, but has it been—

[Marc Mayrand]

Do you mean foreign influence?

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

Foreign influence, yes.

[Marc Mayrand]

Certainly, I think, my view is that there's been very...if any, evidence of that in Canada.

That being said, I think it would be wise to be proactive and not wait for something to happen. I think Bill C-76 tried to do a few very valid things there, but again, as I mentioned, there's the whole area of social media and the whole area of being able to track the funds that come through the system.

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

To be properly proactive, to try to equal what the potential threat is....

The potential threat is significant. I would argue that in the U.S. elections, which a number of us were observers to, the influence of foreign governments, in particular Russia, on their election, as has been revealed through multiple investigations, was profound. We don't know, but it may have affected the outcome as to who is president. It's still to be seen, but at least the question is there, and I think the question is a valid question. Would you agree that foreign influence in the U.S. election was real, that—

[Marc Mayrand]

There is no doubt in my mind that we should not tolerate any foreign influence or interference.

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

Does Bill C-76 go far enough in terms of our being able to go into the next election knowing that there is no similar circumstance that could take place in Canada with misinformation or with the amount of money that can flow through Canadian organizations who are participating in our election?

[Marc Mayrand]

As I said, I think this has been achieved mostly through the misuse—I characterize it as that, as “misuse”—of social media and electronic media. In that context, I'm not sure Bill C-76 does make a difference there, honestly.

I think the issues are broader than the electoral process.

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

Process is part of it, and certainly a key part of it.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, definitely, but again, I'm talking of experience here, when we had the issues with automated calls. It was so easy to mask the provider. These things are run from around the world, so tracing them, tracking them, and going to the source is an extreme challenge for any enforcement body.