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.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We are where we are.
Sorry, Chair. I was talking too long.
Thank you.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
To follow up on Mr. Cullen's theme, I'm interested as well. Perhaps, Professor Turnbull, you may or may not be the right witness to ask in terms of the charter issues with respect to the proposal.
Has there been an issue on the speech side of things or would you perceive there to be a reasonable limit on freedom of speech because political parties are under those same requirements as well?
12:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes.
Third parties have always had a slightly different.... Within that balancing act between freedom of expression on one side and the public interest and a level playing field on the other, that's a balancing act that Parliament and the court, I would say, have had a kind of dialogue about to try to preserve. Within that, there is a microcosm where there's a separate, related balancing act for third parties because they're trying to do different things.
I don't know whether a court would look at an organization that plays an advocacy and educational role all the time, something like Leadnow, and say, “What would come to Leadnow that wouldn't be considered an election contribution?” I'm just picking that off the top of my head. You could make an argument that there is an educational advocacy function that has many benefits and they're not just trying to affect the outcome of an election. I could see third parties saying, hold on, we don't want to have that blanket contribution limit applied to us all the time because that's going to cut into the activities that we do that seem to be a little like election activities but aren't really.
I can see a few more trips to court to try to really narrow down that difference and figure out where that line is.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I can understand the application to an organization like Leadnow, but what about an environmental organization? They say they're saving wetlands, but then they also have an advocacy function. Can they accept the $100,000 donation to save the wetland, but it's...?
12:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
If your goal is to influence government, you have to parse the definition of election and political advertising in such a way that there's still a possibility for third party organizations to receive contributions and do the work they do to lobby government on particular bills, but then carve out a special area that is particularly for election advertising.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Emery, I noticed something regarding one of the founding members of your council—and I'm going to butcher his name—Nicolas Duchastel de Montrouge.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council
Nicolas Duchastel de Montrouge, yes.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
He was denied his right to vote while living in the United States, but he could present himself as a candidate in the federal election. How does that work?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council
Yes, that's right. It just shows a bias in the system, which is geared more towards people running for office than for people actually voting. That was his intention in running; he wanted to bring attention to that.
Yes, he ran for office, but he couldn't vote for himself.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I understand he ran as an independent in Calgary in the last election. That's an interesting story. In terms of those two charter rights—the ability to vote and the ability to run for office—there really shouldn't be a hierarchy.
I'll ask both of you that question:. Should there be a hierarchy between those two rights? Shouldn't they be similar in terms of one's access to that?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council
The ability to run in different ridings goes back in Canadian history, right to the beginning. I forget which prime minister it was who ran in the east and lost, and then ran in Quebec, and finally was elected somewhere to the west.
These are two basic fundamental rights of expression and of accountability, and they should be open to every citizen.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I would concur. It seems illogical for there to be that difference.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Professor Turnbull, back in 2014, you were one of 450 professors who signed an open letter to describe the Fair Elections Act as an irremediably flawed bill that should be completely rewritten. Do you believe that Bill C-76, if passed, will undo what was done in the Fair Elections Act?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
You pointed out in that letter that the right to vote is enshrined in the charter as a fundamental part of society. I know you've suggested it hasn't gone far enough, and we've gone into some of the things, but can you comment on the changes in Bill C-76 and how it is protecting or preserving that charter right to vote?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes. There are two major answers that I'd give for that.
One is that to be able to make contributions is a fundamental part of political expression. This is why I'm particularly in favour of making sure that only individuals can make contributions. I think it's an extension of our activity as individuals and as people who participate in a democratic society. Sometimes political finance kind of gets a bad name, and we try to limit it as much as possible to the point sometimes where we're going against what we're trying to do to begin with. In that way, preserving a right to make contributions is incredibly important with regard to political expression.
The other is that I think the bill makes important advances towards accessibility, and that's fundamentally important. With respect to the issue of cybersecurity, many Canadians are still concerned about moving to electronic voting and online voting because of the possible breaches that could occur and result in election results that don't have integrity. I completely understand, and we have to make sure that things are secure. I would also echo Professor Milner's comments about voting being a community exercise and about voting with your neighbours. I understand, and I feel the same way. However, there are many Canadians for whom elections are not accessible in the way that we do them now. It is really no longer possible for us to ignore that, not that we ever really could, but we really have to fix this. We have to get much closer to a full meaning of accessibility, and I think the bill moves us in the right direction on that. That's not my area of expertise, so I'm not going to say it's perfect, but I think we're going in the right direction, yes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In answer to the question about which prime minister lost in the east and then ran for a seat in the west, Sir John A. Macdonald lost in Kingston, which even in those days was not a reliable Conservative seat. He ran on Vancouver Island, which he never actually visited, but he won.
12:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Is that right?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes, that's true.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier lost in Quebec and ran in Saskatchewan. Again, I don't think he actually visited his riding. Mackenzie King also wound up being a Saskatchewan MP at one point.
Those are the ones I know of. There may have been others. Anyway, it has happened.
I want to ask Mr. Emery a question with regard to the issue of Canadians being abroad, out of the country, for more than five years and their voting rights. It is a charter right, under section 3 of the charter, to vote.
Do you regard that as an absolute right, as opposed to a right on which reasonable restrictions that are “justified in a free and democratic society” can be imposed? Of course, I'm using the language of section 1 of the charter, which is the section that allows for some limitations to be placed on other parts of the charter.
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council
That's the question before the Supreme Court at this moment.
My own opinion is that it's an absolute right, and that's shared within the organization that I'm here representing.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
That's one of the those questions that has to have a yes or no answer. There can be a justification for the yes or the no.
If you say that, yes, it's an absolute right, then let me ask you this question about the supposedly highly principled position being taken by the government in this bill. They say that if you're a Canadian citizen, the right pertains to you as a Canadian citizen, not as a Canadian citizen who is a former resident of Canada. If you've been out of Canada for more than five years.... I have some friends who live in Australia, in Adelaide, who've been out of Canada since the late 1990s. This would apply to them. Their children are also citizens of Canada, although they haven't lived here. Their absolute right to vote in elections is being denied by this law. Does that not mean, therefore, that this is also, to the extent that it neglects the rights of these Canadian citizens, an unconstitutional failure on the part of the government?
