Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2018

[Morna Ballantyne]

We couldn't have picket signs. We couldn't have banners that mentioned our main message and our main demand. Remember, we're a public sector union, and we are constantly making demands of governments. It's impossible to separate the issue of government from political parties: that is who government is.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's interesting. There's that crossover between what is government and what is a political party, and the ability to simply raise an issue, whether it's sick leave, as it was in this case, or a Phoenix issue, or, on an oil company's behalf, energy issues. The crossover between what is an issue against or countering the government and what has now become a partisan activity—

[Morna Ballantyne]

That's right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—is blurry enough that you think it would chill civil society or all third parties from speaking up.

[Morna Ballantyne]

We can't speak on behalf of all civil society—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Well, from your perspective—

[Morna Ballantyne]

—but I can tell you and testify that it had a chill effect on our activity as a union representing and negotiating on behalf of members.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I appreciate that.

Professor Norris, I have a question for you. Would your suggestion be that we move towards the German model with respect to accountability for Facebook and other social media platforms in terms of their responsibility, their culpability, in spreading disinformation?

[Dr. Pippa Norris]

I think it's a really important thing to look at the best practice, which is still developing and is still very new, and to look at it in terms of what the private sector is doing. For example, Facebook has many more employees in trying to monitor its own activities. For Twitter, ditto. New rules in terms of transparency and privacy have also been really critical for this, but it's really about trying to learn from different governments to see what can be best confronted—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

One of the questions that we're also talking about here is in terms of participation, and not just the participation of voters but also the diversity of those who seek to represent voters. A very good aspect of this bill is that child care costs, as I think you mentioned, can now be used as an election expense. You've also written about trying to get more women in particular into the system, which is what this primarily directed towards, I would estimate, but not necessarily.

I'll quote you here. You've said:

There’s a strong association between the type of electoral system adopted and the representation of women. Proportional representation electoral systems tend to have twice as many women in parliament than those that use first-past-the-post or single member plurality....

If you were forced to choose between provisions that exist within Bill C-76 and provisions that would, say, bring in the government's promise and bring in a more proportional system, and if the only lens you were looking through was greater diversity for our 75%-male-dominated Parliament, which would you choose?

[Dr. Pippa Norris]

Fortunately, it isn't a trade-off, as you know.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Oh, good, You'd do both.

[Dr. Pippa Norris]

If you get more women and more minorities so that the Parliament looks more like Canada, that actually expands participation as well.

As you know, I started off with the two provisions, which really would both expand representation, one of which is electoral reform towards a mixed-member proportional system, which many other countries have now moved towards. It retains the virtues of first past the post and the constituency service, but mixes it with a proportional outcome. The second is legal gender quotas, which have been implemented in a hundred countries around world. Canada always used to be very positive in terms of female representation, but it has lagged behind. It's had fits and starts.

Both of those legal changes would be good, but you couldn't implement them by the 2019 election.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Ms. Nagy, I was reflecting as you were telling your story about what happened in Kelowna. I was trying to recall when I saw signs being grabbed, and I saw it when I was an observer at the federal Liberal selection of Stéphane Dion as leader. People were grabbing other leadership signs and sticking them together to suggest that Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff had formed a coalition, and other people were ripping the signs back from them.

Maybe what you observed was just a long tradition—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—within a party to try to represent something that wasn't true through the simple usage of sign placement. It was quite amazing to watch. It was Liberal-on-Liberal violence and it was breathtaking.

I don't mean to diminish what you saw in Kelowna, but perhaps you'll take some comfort in knowing that it wasn't just done against the Green Party. Maybe there are equal-opportunity abusers of signs.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Mr. Cullen's time is up, Ms. Nagy, but if you do have a very brief response, feel free to respond. Make it brief, please.

[Angela Nagy]

Sure thing.

I do think it is a legitimate concern that in any riding or election, another party or candidate could use another party's signs or logo to suggest a partnership that doesn't exist in order to intentionally confuse voters.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Blake Richards]

Thank you. I appreciate your keeping it brief.

We have two questioners left. We'll have Mr. Graham for two minutes and then Mr. Reid for the last two minutes. That will wrap up this panel.

Mr. Graham, the floor is yours.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Nagy, with regard to the investigation of the Green Party's activities in Kelowna—Lake Country in 2015, the investigation is closed and no findings were made against any of the parties. Is that correct?

[Angela Nagy]

That is not correct.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What findings were made against somebody else, and what investigation remains open?

[Angela Nagy]

The investigation is closed, but Dan Ryder was found to be in contravention of subsection 363(1) of the act.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That was deemed unintentional. The investigation is closed and the file is finished. If you have additional evidence, why was it not provided at that time?

[Angela Nagy]

Well, the letter I received from the election commissioner stated that the additional concern that had been raised by other complainants regarding inducing an individual from voting or to refrain from voting for another candidate would be difficult to prove. It doesn't mean it did not happen. It just stated that it would be difficult to prove.

I still have grave concerns with that, because “difficult to prove” and “factual” are two very different things.