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.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Start at 4:30 through until what time are you suggesting?
Liberal
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
When will we have an idea of who our witnesses will be?
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Lauzon
No, but after this meeting I can go back to the office, and we could publish the notice for tomorrow's meeting with the information that we have now, and as we get more information, we'll update it.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. Just in talking, as we look forward, it's tricky as we're trying to build this witness list as we go, but my understanding is both Facebook and Twitter have declined to appear.
We've been talking a lot about social media and this information and the use of it during campaigns. I'd like the committee to compel.... They have government relations people who work here in Ottawa. It's not as if we're asking them to travel. They've been showing up to a lot of committees, because—ethics and information and others. I think it's inexcusable. We're dealing with this conversation, and the two social media giants are refusing to come.
Liberal
Conservative
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. In terms of the structure of the motion, I defer to the clerk as to what it would look like. I think it's through the chair.
The Clerk
If I understand correctly, the committee's wish is to summon representatives of both Facebook and Twitter to appear. Normally when we summon there would be a specific date and time that's tied to the summons because we will hire a bailiff to contact them.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Understood. It won't come to that, I'm sure.
The last committee hearing we have as of right now for witnesses is when? What's our last available date? Is it Monday? Is it Tuesday?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Our last program for witnesses right now is Thursday afternoon, but it doesn't mean we can't do something after that.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. This is a second conversation I was just talking with Andy about . We had a notion of a plan, but this committee is not operating under any deadline right now officially, so at some point we're going to have to have that conversation because, for example, we have a witness we'd like to come. When is the actual deadline for them to appear? I don't know.
I think the compelling would be good. I don't know what date to put on it because I don't know what date this committee is done with witnesses because we haven't had that conversation.
I apologize to our witnesses, by the way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I'll just see if we have unanimous consent to do whatever procedure we need to make those people come.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In the next hour I can prepare the text with the clerk if we want something formal. I was looking first at the expression of the will of the committee that we want to hear from these two witnesses. I get that sense in terms of the details of how we summon. I'll work on a deadline date.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
It might be advisable to fill the blanks in after with regard to the date but to leave the clerk the job of doing that.
We'd want to look at some past form and make sure we've followed that form.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
As long as everyone is in favour of that....
Okay, thank you very much. We'll go to the witnesses.
Professor Turnbull, you could start, and then we'll go to Mr. Emery
Dr. Lori Turnbull Associate Professor, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before the procedure and House affairs committee on Bill C-76.
Before I get into the bill, I'll make some general comments about political finance regulation in Canada. We've been regulating spending and contributions for candidates, parties, and third parties in some form or another since 1974. Every once in a while, the rules get reviewed or reconsidered in light of new realities with respect to democracy, elections, political culture, and things like that. At the heart of all these debates about political finance are some fundamental questions about democracy and political expression. It's always a balancing act between freedom of expression and the public interest, and maintaining a level playing field for political competitors. Neither of these is pursued by regulation to the complete detriment of the other: we need the balance, and that's where the charter comes in. The charter protects that.
It's been the norm historically, in connection with the charter, for political finance laws to end up in court, and there's been some very thoughtful jurisprudence on the role of the state in regulating money in politics. The terrain is shifting now, however, and I would say that money is no longer a reliable proxy for political expression. It used to be that debates and paid prime-time ads were the way to reach people, but now—and in connection with Mr. Cullen's comments—it's Twitter, Facebook, clickbait, Instagram, and micro-targeted email messages. This type of political expression poses a completely new regulatory challenge because, for the most part, it is low cost or free. Talking about spending limits and contribution limits is a little bit offside. Spending limits only get to part of the issue, and, I would suggest, an increasingly smaller part as we go on.
Nevertheless, here we are on Bill C-76. The theme is modernization. Democracy is changing for many reasons, and the law needs to catch up. The bill, as members are aware, covers a lot of ground. Some major areas of concentration, like establishing pre-writ spending limits for parties and third parties, aren't a huge surprise. We've seen this in Ontario. Given the constant campaign, campaigning all the time, imposing limits only once the writ is dropped is seen as arbitrary. The bill limits the writ period to 50 days. It increases transparency around the activities of third parties in a few ways: by requiring third parties to identify themselves in political advertising; by requiring them to keep separate bank accounts to allow their political activity to be seen a bit more clearly when you open up the books; and including things like polling in the expenditures that are limited, which is not the case now. It's an area where third parties are now able to spend in a way that's unlimited, but political parties are not. Also, there are measures to make voting more accessible, including the creation of a register of future electors.
I have a couple of comments on what the bill doesn't do. Third parties can still take unlimited donations from organizations, while political parties and candidates cannot. For over a decade now, contributions coming to candidates and parties from organizations, as opposed to individuals, have not been allowed. This creates an unbalanced playing field and perhaps creates an incentive for wealthier people or organizations to make unlimited donations to third parties.
The issue of foreign money is very tough to regulate, and largely because third parties are often doing many things. They're not just political actors, and they're not just contesting elections. They're also doing charitable work, advocacy work, educational work, and working with partners in other countries. So it's very difficult to impose particular rules during the campaign period or for election spending by third parties. You used to be able to take foreign money for some things, but now for this purpose, during this time, you can't. It's very difficult to police. On some level you don't want to go too far with it because then you're choking off funds used for other purposes, and we want organizations to be able to do those things, presumably. It comes down to how to regulate third party spending and activity that relates to elections.
Many observers have expressed concern over the possibility of foreign involvement in Canadian elections. We have to work on that. We have to be able to make Canadians feel that it's not going to be a problem, and that we are aware of what foreign influence could look like. Again, I think this relates significantly to issues of digital democracy, cybersecurity. Regulating money is not really going far enough and it's not really getting at what people's major concerns are.
I'll leave it there and allow my colleague to speak.
J. Randall Emery Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
I'm the executive director of the Canadian Citizens Rights Council, which brings together organizational and individual members to invest in a vision of a renewed Canada leading the world in citizens' rights and freedoms.
Our comments today centre on universal voting rights. Bill C-76 does the right thing by restoring full federal voting rights to Canadian citizens abroad. Canadians support this universal right. We urge you to preserve these provisions in the bill and support a timely and fair implementation.
First of all, supporting the right to vote from abroad is the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do because doing nothing harms Canadians. Canadian history has been marked by a steady progression towards universal voting rights, beginning with the enfranchisement of women, then racialized minorities and people who don't own property, Inuit, first nations peoples, federal judges, people with mental disabilities, people with no fixed address, and lastly, prisoners, yet the current five-year rule at issue before the Supreme Court of Canada denies at least one million citizens the right to vote and sends a clear message of exclusion.
These are not hobby voters. Canadians abroad are subject to tax laws, criminal laws, foreign anti-corruption laws, and special economic measures, and they benefit from the right of entry to Canada from foreign soil, Canada pension benefits, citizenship laws, and immigration laws.
Moreover, it's the right thing to do because Canadians abroad benefit Canada. Canadians living and working abroad are directly and indirectly responsible for billions of dollars in bilateral trade. They are exceptionally well educated, linguistically adept, and culturally bilingual. They are our cultural and economic ambassadors. The more we as a country engage them, the more Canada will prosper.
Second, Canadians get this. Over time, Canadians maintain an overwhelming connectedness to Canada, but less so to their home province or municipality. Correspondingly, in 2011, the Environics Institute found that 69% of Canadians thought Canadians abroad should vote in federal elections. This bill strongly aligns with public opinion.
Finally, we ask you to support enfranchising provisions in this bill and to support a timely and fair implementation. When amendments are offered at clause-by-clause consideration, we ask members of this committee to preserve enfranchising language as is, without amendments that would limit the population of eligible voters. We also ask you to support a timely and fair implementation.
Recognizing Elections Canada's time constraints, we urge swift passage of this bill. We also urge members to avoid new identification or other requirements that have been demonstrated to reduce turnout elsewhere.
This is a historic opportunity to let all Canadians vote. It's the right thing to do, and Canadians support it. We applaud the enfranchising provisions of this bill and urge their preservation and timely implementation.
Thank you. I welcome any questions you might have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you both very much for appearing here today.
We will go on to some questions, starting with Mr. Simms.