Evidence of meeting #110 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Taylor Gunn  President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX
Duff Conacher  Co-Founder, Democracy Watch
Henry Milner  Associate Fellow, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Lori Turnbull  Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
J. Randall Emery  Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council

10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 110th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we continue our study on Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We are pleased to be joined today by Taylor Gunn, president and chief election officer of CIVIX, and Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.

For the committee's information, you have the list from the clerk of the total number of witnesses. The good news is that they've all been invited—all 300—and we've accommodated everyone who's interested. If there are any more who express an interest, we have slots this week and can fill them. We should be finished with witnesses this week.

We can do some opening statements.

Mr. Gunn, maybe you could start, and then we'll hear from Mr. Conacher.

10 a.m.

Taylor Gunn President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX

It's nice to see everybody again. Last time, it was around the electoral reform issue, and I want to put on the record that I sincerely appreciate all the effort and the time you put in even if it didn't really turn into anything. It was a great example of a parliamentary committee at work.

It's a privilege to have been here a few times before. In case you don't recall who we are and what we do, I'll explain that we're a Canadian civic education charity that works to develop the habits and skills of citizenship within students under the voting age.

Our primary piece of work is the student vote program, which is a parallel election for kids under the voting age. You may have been aware of that. We're running one in Ontario right now. We expect probably around 300,000 kids to go through that process by Thursday of this week.

An interesting addition to our work is that we ran our first student vote outside of Canada in Colombia two weeks ago, with 31,000 kids participating. Hopefully, that will open us up to more countries and we can export our Canadian democratic values.

We've also started a new program that's all about news literacy and “mis-, dis-, and mal-information”, which relates a bit to what's in this bill. That's something that I might bring up later.

It's a privilege to be here. I can't say that I object to much—or maybe anything—in the proposed bill. I'm really comfortable giving more time to Duff, who might have some more specific points. There are some things I can comment on around the preregistration, and maybe a little bit around the foreign interference, with what we've learned over the last few months, and then on another couple of small points.

I'm happy to give up my time to Duff or to end short so that you guys can have a break and plan for your next session.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay, Mr. Conacher, you're on.

10:05 a.m.

Duff Conacher Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to testify before you today.

I am testifying here in my role as co-founder of Democracy Watch, which, if you are not aware, is a citizen advocacy group. We've been working since 1993 to make Canada the world's leading democracy, pushing for changes to require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open, and representative, and to prevent waste. A total of 190,000 people have signed up to send a letter or petition in one or another of our campaigns from across Canada.

Today, my submission is based largely, as Mr. Gunn mentioned, on earlier submissions made to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

Bill C-76 makes many good changes, reversing many of the unfair changes made by the 2014 so-called Fair Elections Act, but the Democracy Watch position is that the negative effects of many of the changes in that act were exaggerated. As a result, the reversal of those changes will likely have little overall effect on what actually happens in elections. Like the 2014 Fair Elections Act, Bill C-76 unfortunately doesn't live up to its name. It's called the elections modernization act, but like the Fair Elections Act, it allows many old-fashioned, unfair, and undemocratic election practices to continue, as follows:

Number one, of course, the vote-counting system doesn't count votes in a fair way, and usually produces false majority governments. It also doesn't allow voters to vote “none of the above”—a key option that voters should have, and already have in four provinces—and it doesn't fully fix election dates, as the U.K. has, to stop unfair snap election calls.

Number two, it continues to allow the baiting of voters with false promises in ads. The Canada Elections Act prohibits inducing voters to vote for anyone by—and this is the actual wording—“any pretence or contrivance”. However, the commissioner of Canada elections refuses to apply that measure to a blatantly false promise or false statement made during an election. A clearly worded “honest promises” requirement, with significant penalties, is clearly needed. It's the number one hot-button issue for voters: even if they vote for the party that wins, they don't get what they voted for because of blatantly false promises.

While clause 61 of the bill adds some specifics to the measures in sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Elections Act concerning false statements about candidates, the measures actually significantly narrow the range of prohibited false statements. That is a move in the wrong direction. Dishonesty in elections should be broadly defined and discouraged. It's a fundamental voter rights issue. They have the right to an honest campaign so that they know what they're voting for honestly, and misleaders, as opposed to leaders, should be discouraged with significant penalties.

Related to that, the bill does not do nearly enough to stop the new form of false claims, secret false online election ads, including by foreigners. Bill C-76 trusts social media companies to self-regulate, only holding them accountable if they “knowingly” allow a foreign ad, but not saying anything at all in terms of their knowingly or in any other way allowing a false domestic ad. Again, clause 61 narrows the definition of “false statements”, but it still would be illegal to make a false statement about a candidate.

In terms of the “knowingly” standard, the social media companies will easily be able to come up with evidence that they didn't know an ad had been placed. It's not going to be enforceable. They'll get off every time, so that doesn't discourage them from allowing secret, false, online election ads by people in the country or foreigners.

Media and social media companies should be required to report all details about every election-related ad to Elections Canada during the six months leading up to an election, so that Elections Canada can check whether the ad is false, whether it exceeds the third party spending limits, and whether it is paid for by a foreigner. All those three things are illegal, but if Elections Canada can't see those ads, which they can't because they're micro-targeted, how are they going to enforce those laws against false and foreign-sponsored ads, and ads that exceed the third party spending limits?

Don't trust the social media companies to self-regulate in this area. Require them to report every ad to Elections Canada. During those six months, empower Elections Canada to order a clearly false or illegal ad because it's foreign or exceeds the spending limits to be deleted from a media and social media site and impose significant fines on the violators.

In terms of what the bill also does not address, annual donations are still too high. Bill C-50 doesn't do anything about this. As a result, the parties all rely on a small pool of large donors who donate thousands of dollars or more. That facilitates funnelling as SNC-Lavalin was caught doing. It also facilitates lobbyists bundling donations to buy influence. That's all undemocratic and unfair.

There are seven practices the bill does not address that should be switched to be overseen by Elections Canada or other watchdogs.

One is unfair nomination races. Elections Canada should be running all of them. The reform act has not changed anything. All the parties have handed back to party leaders the power to approve election candidates, sometimes with someone in their party headquarters' office as a screen.

Another is unfair leadership races. Elections Canada should be overseeing them.

Another is questionable auditing. Elections Canada should be auditing parties, candidates, and third parties.

Another is unfair election debates. Elections Canada or a commission should be running them with their rules. Hopefully a bill making that change will come soon, before the next election.

Another is biased election polling station supervision. The ruling party and second party choose those people and can force the returning officer to appoint whom they want. Elections Canada should be appointing all the polling station returning officers.

There is the questionable use of voter information. The bill does not extend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, to the parties. The law should be extended to the parties with the Privacy Commissioner doing enforcement.

Another is unfair government advertising. Hopefully there will be a bill coming on that as well with the Auditor General or Elections Canada empowered to stop any ads that are partisan in the six months leading up to an election, and a full prohibition on government ads during the three months before an election.

There is the third party spending limits area. There's no way to stop Canadian businesses and citizen groups receiving foreign money from entities that frees up other money they have to use for third party election advocacy activities, unless you're going to prohibit foreign-owned businesses in Canada and foreign contributions to citizen groups completely. This bill does go quite far in requiring the separate bank account to be set up. I think the problem with it is it's discrimination against citizen groups that take donations versus unions and corporations that are also third parties. It's very easy for them to shift money into this bank account, but a third party is going to have to do special fundraising to get money into that account if it's a citizen group. It's going to make it much more difficult for citizen groups. They are allowed to donate into the account from their own funds that they may have gathered throughout the year, obviously not foreign funds. I think the overall effect is going to make it much more difficult for citizen groups to gather any funds compared to unions or corporations.

The disclosure of the reports and the limits are all good as well, but you need a limit on government advertising as well to make it fair for everyone leading up to the pre-writ drop period and the election period. Overall, I don't see any reason to increase the third party limit during the election period. That's a bad idea. That's a move in an undemocratic direction because it would allow wealthier interests to spend more. The cost of online ads is much less than traditional advertising was when the limits were first set. Even though the new limit covers more expenses, including surveys and going door to door and things like that kind of outreach, I don't see a reason to increase the limit. I think it's a move in a bad direction. How was the limit chosen? How were all the limits chosen? Are they based on anything? Are they based on looking at what parties spent on ads in the pre-writ period in the 2015 election, before the 2011 election?

It's the same with third parties. Is it based on anything that's been reported to Elections Canada? I know that the figures in 2004 limiting third parties were arbitrary, but now we have some track record and I think it should be examined.

I'll just finish with this point. The limits as stated in the government's backgrounder are not the same as what's in the bill. I'm quite confused by huge discrepancies in the amounts. The pre-writ limit for party spending says $1.5 million in the backgrounder, but in the bill, it says $1.1 million. In the backgrounder, it says it's adjusted for 2019 figures based on inflation, which is 30% inflation which we don't have now. All the limits are the same. For third parties, there's a $300,000 gap between what it says in the bill and the backgrounder, and for a riding there's a $3,000 gap.

10:15 a.m.

An hon. member

[Inaudible—Editor]

10:15 a.m.

Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

The pre-writ period and the writ period. I'm not sure where those figures came from in the backgrounder.

I would just make the overall point: how are these limits set? Why not look at what parties actually spent in the pre-writ period leading up to the 2011, 2015 elections. It's the same with the third parties and what they spent during the election. Set a limit based on that. I don't think any of the limits are very meaningful—any of them—because very few parties are going to spend that amount in July and August. People don't usually run big ad campaigns in July and August, especially for voters, because they're not paying attention until September after the writ is dropped.

Finally, overall enforcement must be increased. The fines must be increased. The watchdogs must be made much more independent. The length of time for bringing complaints must be extended from 30 days after an election to one year.

I welcome your questions about any of those points. Thank you again for the opportunity.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Which watchdogs were you referring to?

10:15 a.m.

Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

There's the Chief Electoral Officer. The ruling party can select that person now with just a majority vote in the House. No consultation is even required with opposition parties. As you may know, we have a court case right now challenging the Ethics Commissioner's appointment and the appointment of the Commissioner of Lobbying, based on consultation not being done, even with the opposition parties.

If they're going to enforce a rule that says a false ad can't be run, then everyone has to view them as completely non-partisan. Right now, the ruling party cabinet chooses the Chief Electoral Officer. The director of public prosecutions is chosen by a committee that has a majority of ruling party members on it.

There's a better way. There's an independent commission in Ontario. The way it appoints judges is the world-leading model, and it should be used for every single appointment of every government watchdog at the federal level. You need these people to be viewed as completely non-partisan, not tainted by even the hint of an appearance of bias. If they're going to stop false ads that are online and curtail people's free expression, you don't want anyone thinking they've done that to protect one party, help one party, or hurt another party.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much.

We'll go to questioning now.

We'll start with Mr. Bittle.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gunn, can you comment on the register of future voters?

10:15 a.m.

President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX

Taylor Gunn

Sure.

It's a trend with election management bodies. The purpose is to be able to communicate with younger electors once they are 18.

It seems like there's a couple of different methods for this. One, which they have in Ontario, is that the young people are supposed to opt in before they are added. Another version is where information is shared from wherever it can be collected with the election management body, where it's not an opt in.

I wasn't sure with this bill.... It says it may be opt in. I'm not sure whether it's going to be opt in or not. The opt-in provision represents potentially a teachable moment in schools and in other ways, as long as it's properly funded and executed, but it is also challenging. I believe that Elections Ontario found it challenging to obtain the numbers they were looking forward to in building that preregistration list. Of course, the alternative is that the information is shared behind the scenes. Your name appears on a list where you have no education or understanding about the list, what its purpose is, and you lose the potential for that teachable moment.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

You mentioned—and I agree with you—that it won't entirely fix the problem of youth voter turnout, but where do we go from here? Is it a good step? What are your thoughts?

10:20 a.m.

President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX

Taylor Gunn

With the preregistration?

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Yes.

10:20 a.m.

President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX

Taylor Gunn

We always thought that if done properly, it could create an opportunity to educate kids about what the voters list is as a small component of a wider civic education effort. I think it's great that it's been put in here.

It's one of those things that beyond the bill, it comes down to the execution and delivery, and again, the challenge of whether or not it's opt in. With all of these things, I always advise that maybe it shouldn't be an election agency that's running these types of educational campaigns but organizations that are already active in schools and have the experience and knowledge on how to make something out of that.

I think it's great that it's in here. I wouldn't rely on it to increase turnout, but it's a trend that's being seen across Canada. I don't think anyone should object to it.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Based on your engagements with youth, what are the best tools to engage with them?

10:20 a.m.

President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX

Taylor Gunn

They're probably the best tools you'd have for any adult, as well. As far as turnout in elections goes, in my opinion—and Duff, I'm pretty sure, would have a couple of additional points—there are so many different factors in the circle of attracting someone to participate. Obviously, I'd put civic education at the foundation of that.

Then you have things such as whether the election is competitive. Is it a change election? You still have citizens who will feel that their vote doesn't count. That's based on the electoral system, and nothing is happening on that one.

You have things such as how people receive their information in elections. You do have accessibility. This came from the national youth survey that Elections Canada has now done twice. There are motivation factors, accessibility factors. All those things come into play, and all of them have to be done at the same time. You can't rely just on civic education, for example.

I still would suggest and advise to anyone that the most effective dollars spent on potentially grooming a young person into a citizen is civic education. Then, of course, it comes down to education that is not just out of a textbook, making sure it's experiential. I'd point out that especially when you get into things such as cyber-threats or foreign interference in our elections, you can do the top-down...or the advice that you have in the bill of how people detect these ads and this sort of thing, but if you're not doing the bottom-up at the same time, almost like citizen preparedness or resiliency, you won't get the effect you're looking for.

Outside of this bill are things such as empowering organizations to do the things that Elections Canada either doesn't have the ambitions or aspirations to do, and being more aggressive in tackling these types of challenges. I know that's out of your hands, but someone should be concerned with it, because there isn't a mechanism right now for groups like ours, and maybe others, to be creative.

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Conacher, you're not the first witness to mention political parties being subject to PIPEDA. It seems to be...and I don't want to say a trendy thing, but political parties are—

10:25 a.m.

Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

—a means, thank you. Political parties are different actors from any others, and I'll give you one example. In terms of PIPEDA, if I call up an organization and ask what information they have on me, they are to provide that information. That's a good practice within PIPEDA.

Political parties have supporters, and they don't like other political parties. What's to stop thousands of individuals from bombarding a political party or a political organization as a coordinated campaign to undermine a party?

10:25 a.m.

Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

Undermine it how?

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

To shut it down or overwhelm it with requests.

10:25 a.m.

Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

I think we have to start, if this transition is made, with a notice going out to anyone a party has information about, letting them know what they have and then asking for their consent to whatever the use the party wants to make of it, with a simplified form. That's how the transition would be made, and that whole bombardment wouldn't happen because people would receive a notice proactively from the parties about what had been gathered on them already.

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Since political parties receive the voter lists, essentially everyone in the country would get mail from each political party—

10:25 a.m.

Co-Founder, Democracy Watch

Duff Conacher

You can make an exception for that kind of thing. For example, people can be given notice in tax forms that this information is shared with political parties. There are ways of getting around that. I'm talking about other information that parties might have gathered from people—