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.
7:25 p.m.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
I don't think that lengthening the period is the way to restrict that. I think another approach is needed.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'd like to clarify something, because I think it was misconstrued a little bit.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I wanted to say I wasn't necessarily advocating the idea of lengthening that period. What I was asking you was this: do you feel it is going to fix the problem by having this June 30 date?
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Did you want to respond on the idea of the contribution limits?
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Well, I did ask the question and she didn't have a chance to answer it.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
Ms. Krause, I appreciate your coming here, and I appreciate your efforts and the work you're doing to keep foreign money from influencing Canadian elections.
I'd like to build on what Mr. Cullen was talking about, that you really only see it on one side of the spectrum. I'd never heard about this before today. There seems to be a website, maybe it's even a newspaper, called Alberta Oil Magazine It seems to be very pro-Alberta oil, based on what I'm looking at. They ran an article entitled, “It's Time for the Energy Industry to Ignore Vivian Krause”. Would you care to comment on that?
7:25 p.m.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
I can tell you, sir, that if I found on the right side of the political spectrum any sort of multi-million-dollar campaign trying to target a specific industry, let alone one of the most economically important industries of our country, I'd have no hesitation in shining a light on it. But I have found no such thing and that is why—
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Why does this pro-oil industry website, which you would think would want to get rid of eco-terrorists and progressive think tanks, say it's time to ignore—
7:30 p.m.
Researcher and Writer, As an Individual
Sir, if you'd done a little more reading, you would know the individual who wrote that has said he's funded by the Vancouver Observer, which is in turn funded by the Tides foundation. In other words, he's receiving money as part of...or he has said he has, anyway. His name is Markham Hislop.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I guess everyone's receiving money from somewhere in this relationship, so—
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you very much, witnesses. We really appreciate your coming.
We will quickly change to our next witness, because we have a vote in 15 minutes and we want to at least hear his opening statement. We're not going to suspend; we're just going to carry right on.
Colleagues, we're pleased to be joined now by our next witness, Marc Chénier, general counsel and senior director, legal services, from the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Unfortunately, the commissioner was not available, but we're delighted that Mr. Chénier is here. We have lots of interest in the commissioner's role in this bill.
Thank you very much for coming. I'm sure we'll have some good questions.
7:30 p.m.
Marc Chénier General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The commissioner has asked me to send his regrets for being unable to attend today's session. I am pleased be here today in the context of your study of Bill C-76.
This bill contains measures that stem from recommendations that were previously made by both the commissioner and others. Among these extremely positive measures, the System of Administrative Monetary Penalties, eliminating the requirement for prior approval in order to lay a charge and the power to ask for a court order to compel witnesses.
In addition to these changes, there are a number of other elements that are of particular interest to us.
First is the return of the commissioner to within the Office of the CEO. This change would be beneficial because our work is closely tied to elections. We would be able to enhance our ability to fulfil our mandate by maintaining better contact with those responsible for the election machinery.
We are happy to see that the important safeguards in Bill C-23 to protect our office's independence have been kept in this bill, including the statement that our investigations be carried out independently, a fixed term for the commissioner with removal only for cause, and his status as deputy head for human resources.
With respect to the third party regime, the commissioner asked that I report that a review of complaints about third party activities during the last general election has been completed, and that we have not found any evidence of illegal collusion, coordination, or foreign influence. However, the narrow regulation of third parties under the current act has limited our examination. Third parties now carry out opinion polls, conduct canvassing activities, and hold events. To date, provided they are carried out independently from parties and candidates, these activities are unregulated. Thus, the bill makes significant progress toward levelling the playing field for electoral participants.
Our office has a few suggestions for improvements. First, the bill would require a third party to identify itself in a tag line on its advertising messages; however, a third party can be a group that is formed only for one election, and its name alone may be meaningless. This is not consistent with the goal of transparency sought by the act, and also causes enforcement difficulties. Some provinces require third parties to provide a telephone number or address in their tag line, and the committee may wish to consider requiring this of third parties.
Furthermore, we generally support provisions to provide tools allowing us to deal with new challenges to elections. This includes new offences related to cybercrime and misleading communications, as well as clarifying the offence for foreign inducement and for false statements about candidates and party leaders.
On that last point, I note that the clarifications related to these two provisions of the act are not as broad as what had been endorsed by the committee in its 35th report.
In the case of false statements about candidates and leaders, allegations of criminality and about a few personal characteristics would give rise to the offence. In our view, this is not sufficient to protect the integrity of our elections against false claims that can have a devastating impact on a campaign.
While courts have recognized that false allegations concerning moral turpitude are currently covered, this would be lost if the bill is adopted as is. At a time when false news has become a pressing concern, weakening one of the only provisions that protects our democratic process against false allegations may not be advisable.
With respect to undue influence by foreigners, one of the ways of exerting such influence would be to make a false statement about a candidate or leader. Again, this is much more limited than what the committee had endorsed. The commissioner continues to believe that any false information disseminated by a foreigner purposefully to influence a Canadian election should be prohibited.
Finally, I would point out that the commissioner supports the suggested amendments put forward by the acting CEO. In particular, as our office suggested to Elections Canada, a circumvention offence should be added to prohibit attempts to go around the ban on foreign funds being used to finance third-party activities. It is also important that the specific intent element be removed from the cybercrime offence.
Information about the amendments recommended by the commissioner is included in the chart that was distributed to the committee.
In conclusion, there are many useful elements to this bill. The commissioner has asked that I mention that there will nevertheless always be limits to what can be accomplished in some cases. While Canada has agreements with some countries to carry out investigations beyond our borders, there are others with which co-operation will be impossible.
That said, we are working with our government security counterparts to minimize such barriers.
I will be pleased to answer your questions.
Thank you.
7:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On a point of order, Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I would like some clarification. Initially, we made an offer to some of the witnesses who came earlier to come back at 8:30 or whenever we get back to this. I'd like to confirm whether that's happening.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
7:35 p.m.
An hon. member
Is that going to make a difference as to whether you come back?
7:35 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Mr. Turmel and Brian Marlatt are the two who said they'd be back.
