Evidence of meeting #112 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 third.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
If they would disclose it, sir, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
—but the problem is they don't disclose—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You asked me not to interrupt you, yet you seem happy to interrupt me.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You say things like “do the math”, “they may have”, “they probably”, “they may have had an impact”, “it's reasonable to suggest”. Do you have evidence of these progressive groups having had an impact?
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
As I mentioned, in a riding that is lost by 61 votes, where you have a third party organization that takes credit for having swung the riding—
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
—and which had staff full time for more than a year, as I said, I think it stands to reason that they may have had an influence.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You spent time in Kitimat. You'll remember that there was a plebiscite there a while ago on a pipeline. Enbridge, which was sponsored in large part by Chinese oil firms at the time, flew in dozens and dozens of door knockers and leaflets. They bought ads all up and down Highway 16. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, and that was not initially disclosed, to try to sway the voters in Kitimat, B.C. to vote for a pipeline that was in large part sponsored by Chinese oil companies, some of which were owned by the Chinese government.
Can I find the report or the paper you wrote about that foreign influence on Canadian electors?
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
I don't need to point it out to you. You're telling me about it. Obviously, you read it.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I see this ambition and this energy for going after people from the progressive side. When there's a clear case of foreign influence in the democratic process here in Canada—
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
—which is disclosed for the most part. That's why we know about it.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
“For the most part”; that's a generous term.
I find it inconsistent. I like your enthusiasm and your energy for this stuff. It would be really great if you kind of splashed that around to the folks who were pushing for say, oil and gas or pushing for more fish farms in Canadian waters thereby threatening things that you say—and I believe you when you say you care about them. It seems to me if we want to ban foreign influence, which is something that we're trying to put into Bill C-76, we don't get to try to ban it from one side and raise cases from one side. I think it would offer a lot more credibility to this conversation and the discussion if there were some fair treatment of the obvious cases in which foreign actors have played significant roles with enormous amounts of money. The Fraser Institute's budget is $11 million a year. You're concerned about $1.5 million over a 10-year budget and yet something almost tens times that amount draws less concern from you. A little consistency would be good.
Mr. Chair, how am I for time?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Oh, sorry, I had a good question for Mr. Rozon, but I'll come back to it if I have some more time.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I have a follow-up question for Ms. Krause.
I am on Elections Canada's website right now looking at the declaration by Leadnow. It seems to me that they do declare all their contributions. The unions and the individuals are all listed by name on Elections Canada's website. Their involvement in elections is declared, and those individuals who contribute to them are all listed. They have about 6,791 different individuals, and the total amount seems to indicate that about $55 a person was donated to Leadnow in order for them to engage in advocacy for elections.
I'm just trying to get clarification as to what else you would like to see organizations such as them declare.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
Well, you've looked at the list. You won't find the name of the Online Progressive Engagement Network. You won't find the name of the Citizenship Engagement Laboratory on that list. They aren't there. They weren't reported.
Liberal
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Where is the evidence that they have donated? You've made this insinuation, but I don't understand where it comes from.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
They don't donate. They provide in-kind support, which, of course, would have a dollar value, right?
As I mentioned, my guess is—although I don't know because Leadnow has refused to answer any questions about this—that most of their input, their contribution, and their support related to the 2015 federal election and the 2011 election probably happened outside of the election period. Because these are very well-funded organizations, they can lay the groundwork for influencing an election two, three, or even four years before the election.
That's one of the problems I think we have, that the way the disclosure requirements currently are, these organizations can get around them by getting things done outside of the election period and also by providing the type of support that does not need to be disclosed.
For example, all of the expenses that are related to use of social media, the use of online communication, are not included in the list of costs that need to be included in the disclosure, and in fact, those are the means that Leadnow in particular relied on most heavily. That's one of the reasons those expenses are affected in their disclosure statement.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I don't necessarily disagree that there are other things that need to be explored and looked at in the future. Some would say that this piece of legislation is quite lengthy as it is, and it needs to cover quite a lot of different areas and undo a lot of what is in the Fair Elections Act, which excluded many people from having the opportunity to vote. We are trying to correct that through this legislation and allow that opportunity. It's not to say there can't be further legislation coming in the future that would have a more robust look at some of these issues that we need to explore further.
Would you say that it would be okay to have another piece of legislation coming in the future, or for this committee to study that and provide recommendations, or are you saying that it must be in this piece of legislation?
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
I would agree with my other colleague on the panel that this act is a missed opportunity if it doesn't address the issues. Here we are, three years away from—
