Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2018

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

Just in general?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Just in general.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

It's a challenge we've all struggled with.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Yes, who your friends are in politics is not always easily determined.

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

That's so sad, John.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I kid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

We could be reduced to tears by this. This is very unexpected.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The point is that we need some clarity from the department and from the minister in terms of how we go about that. Any individual can create a Facebook page and call it whatever they want. “Friends of John Nater” is an example, but it could be a Facebook page such as “Canadians for a Clean Environment”, “Canadians for Increased International Trade”, or “Canadians for a Strong Manufacturing Sector”. There are no limits on how a Facebook page can be created, and for an issue like that, we need to ensure that we are engaging the supply management, or rather, social media companies, in terms of what efforts we make. I had SM in my mind, so social media, supply management....

I think that on a proactive basis, we've seen movement from social media companies to ensure that clearly fake accounts or bots, as they are called, are being whittled away. They are being eliminated, but you can only do so much in any given situation. When we hear from the minister, we need to hear her plan and her strategy to go forward, in terms of what options there are to go about that process.

We talk about Facebook and we talk about Twitter. Those seem to be the primary mechanisms. We heard from the Ontario chief electoral officer this morning, who noted that he has had a relatively positive working relationship with those companies, those businesses. That's what they are; they are businesses.

I'd be curious to hear from the minister about what outreach efforts she has undertaken, in terms of working with Facebook or Twitter, to determine what the next steps are, either with a voluntary approach or with a regulatory or legislative approach, whether it's in time for the next election or whether it's something that we will wait for a future election to see, an election in 2023. I guess that would be the conceivable next step.

I think we need to hear from the minister and have that conversation with her about what the appropriate steps are on this. We hear about Cambridge Analytica, and we hear about the data mining practices that went on in other jurisdictions, but hearing from her, hearing her perspective about what the next steps should be on a matter such as this would be worth the conversation.

Again, when we see the amendments that have come forward from all parties around this table and those represented in the House but not necessarily holding official party status, it would be worthwhile to see if there is one that may address the digital progress that's being undertaken.

The corollary to that is enforcement. Enforcement is a challenge, especially for elections where so much of the enforcement would happen after the fact. If you have an election that is completed, and there's evidence of overspending, of non-registry, or of foreign influence, it's very difficult to correct that fact after an election has been completed. Certainly that's something that was noted before this committee by those who testified. It has been noted in other places and in other commentary. Being able to enforce something at the time of the infraction is a matter that we as a committee have to grapple with and to deal with.

Failure to do so, and the forced wait until after an election has occurred provide very little in terms of corrective practices or corrective ability to fix it at that point in time. If we wait until we've submitted all our financial filings and our audited financial statements after an election campaign, often that's months in before Elections Canada can determine whether an infraction has taken place. We need to look at where that ought to go and what powers should rest with either the Chief Electoral Officer or perhaps the commissioner of elections to make that happen.

Of course, that's one matter, but another matter that I think we as Canadians worry about is security and privacy. More generally, we want to ensure that our data, our personal information, is safe, whether that's information held by Elections Canada or by political parties.

I found the testimony from the Ontario CEO to be informative when he stated there was little evidence of that type of interference and threat, but I thought his additional commentary was even more important, that there were in fact failed attempts to access information, which is positive to see, but nonetheless there were attempts to do so.

I was heartened that he made the comment that this information was then shared with the appropriate channels, the CSE, Communications Security Establishment.... I think it's worthwhile to try to determine where these threats may have come from. I would say the robustness of the province's structures and mechanisms in place to have prevented that attempt is positive.

I'd be curious to hear from the minister if she is aware of specific examples of threats against federal information and whether that's within Elections Canada itself or maybe within a political party—their apparatus, their databases—or any other entity at the federal level that would, by its nature, have personal data on Canadian voters.

I know each political party has access to the voters list of every Canadian who is eligible to vote. That information is shared with Elections Canada by a variety of sources, not the least of which is the Canada Revenue Agency. Certainly, Canada Revenue Agency ensures that Canadians pay their taxes, so one would hope that information would be correct, but that's not always the case. My questions for the minister would be the following: How do we work out a plan? What suggestions would she have to ensure that the information shared with Elections Canada, from entities such as Canada Revenue Agency, will be accurate? How would she ensure that only those who are eligible to vote can vote in elections?

In each of our constituencies we can point to examples of constituents who may have failed to file their taxes on time and have challenges with wrong addresses, wrong names, that end up with CRA data, which is then transferred from the Canada Revenue Agency to Elections Canada. I know of at least two examples in my riding where someone was indicated as being deceased by CRA. If that information is then passed on to Elections Canada, it would be a concern when someone goes to vote. Having a process in place would ensure that is dealt with at that point in time.

Any voter who is eligible to vote could go to the poll on election day and prove who they are and be added to the voters list at that point, but that information being foreseen at that point in time is a challenge.

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

A point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just before the point of order, I want to let the committee know how many amendments there are. The clerk just gave me this, which you are going to be receiving soon. There are from the Liberals, 66; from the Conservatives, 204; from the NDP, 29; from the Green Party, 17; and from the Bloc, two.

You have a point of order, Mr. Cullen.

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

I'm disappointed in the Bloc. I mean, two amendments. Where's the effort?

This is a small point, and I know it somewhat involves people at the table and people not at the table. At some point, considering the number of amendments, substantive work on this bill is needed. I'm not sure I've encountered a bill with that many amendments coming from all sides.

Clearly, from the testimony we've heard to this point, which I think is the last of the testimony we'll hear, there's an enormous amount of work to be done.

There seem to be some sticking points, particularly between the Liberals and the Conservatives, over some of the issues around pre-writ spending and some of the other factors. They are legitimate concerns to have, and a legitimate conversation to have. We have, of course, some amendments that we're working on around privacy and social media, which I think, again, have been supported by testimony.

To the larger case of the parliamentary process, with whatever urgency I would encourage the government and the official opposition to work some of this stuff out so that we can get some sort of process in front of us. As we've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, they've prepared some of these changes. The longer we take, the fewer and fewer options they have to make the changes, many of which all parties at this table agree with.

I fully support allowing Mr. Nater and others to use the privileges that were granted to apply pressure to a bill by using up time, but I don't yet get the sense from the government or the official opposition.... I'm going to say to colleagues on the government side in particular to get on with figuring out where the sticking points are. If we can't solve them, then press the point. People may smile, but at some point you have to decide what you actually want done with this bill and at what urgency you wish to see it done. Some of it is unpleasant, but it's required if you want to see this through. New Democrats want this bill passed with some substantial things in it changed, yet we want to see this bill passed.

I apologize to Mr. Nater and his commentary—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Not at all.

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

—but going through this same process again and again, meeting after meeting, is less than productive, and the pressure is not mounting sufficiently to change the course we're on right now.

I'm trying to be fair. Everyone has a role to play. My goodness, let's not have these meetings if they're just going to be the same thing. If we're going to have these meetings, then let's have some productive dialogue over the disputes on what this bill should look like. That is what we're here to do.

That's it, Chair, and that wasn't a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, thank you.

If you continue the filibuster, I may at some time propose we just see the clock at four in the morning.

Anyway, Mr. Nater, carry on.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I do see, Chair, that it's nearing one o'clock.

Is there an indication that we'll continue past one o'clock?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

At one o'clock, I'll ask the committee what its will is on whether to go past the scheduled time.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's in about four minutes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Okay. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

I think the commentary from Mr. Cullen is informative. It is incumbent on all political parties to see if we can't come to an agreement. It may be an agreement to disagree on a number of points but an agreement to agree on certain points—what the next steps are and what the next few days and few meetings may entail in terms of where we go. I also appreciate the commentary from our clerk and the information provided.

In terms of the number of amendments proposed by each political party, I do see the 204 from the Conservatives as a healthy number. I think that's reflective of the role of the official opposition in terms of the scrutiny of legislation. But I find it interesting and informative, and it relates directly to this amendment, that 66 proposals for amendments have been submitted by the government to their own legislation.

I think that's very germane to the subamendment at hand in terms of hearing from the minister on these 66 amendments that have been proposed by the governing party—where those amendments are focused; why the government feels that the initial draft of the bill was not appropriate in those 66 cases; which ones are substantive elements; and which ones are more housekeeping or minor amendments, whether it's a grammatical change, spelling errors, or fixing numbers within a bill. I think those are general housekeeping matters, and I think that's what happens with any bill that might be brought forward.

For the substantive matters, however, exactly why has this decision been made? Whether it's reflective of testimony we heard here at committee, whether it's a reflection of the change in opinion or the change in direction that the government has decided to take, or whether it's unrelated to those matters but is related, rather, to current events that have happened between the time this bill was implemented and where we are today, on October 2, nearly five months after the initial implementation of this bill, hearing from the minister, hearing her address those 66 amendments, and hearing her outline the reasons for those as well....

When the time comes and we get to clause-by-clause, the government will have the majority to pass any or all of those 66 amendments. In the same way, the government has their numbers to pass or not pass the 204 Conservative amendments, the 29 NDP amendments, the 17 Green Party amendments, and the two amendments from the Bloc. Certainly, I suspect there will be overlap in terms of these amendments and where the interest lies. It will be a matter of trying to choose which of the....

Sorry, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're at our scheduled time. I need to know the will of the committee on whether they wish to carry on or not.

[Linda Lapointe]

I move that the meeting be adjourned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there no interest in carrying on? Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.