Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 15th, 2018

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

To that last point, I did want to say that I agree. I think there should be evidence. There was a lengthy discussion here. Everyone was divided. I think throughout that time we even had subs in this committee, and there were people in all parties who were feeling differently about it and a feeling that something of this magnitude maybe should be done through some consultation, and that we should get the proper evidence to figure out how people would feel about it rather than it just being an amendment to this piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I briefly wanted to say that in the 41st Parliament, Bill C-23, for the first time, broke the barrier against Sunday voting. The previous Conservative government had put in the legislation that advance polling would be mandatory on Sundays. That's the current state of the law, as far as I know it.

What Nathan's amendment would do would be to provide a voting day quite close to election day, but this would not be breaking a precedent or a taboo on Sunday voting. That was done by the previous government.

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

I thank both colleagues for their comments.

Again, I know there are mixed feelings about it. I'm really trying to drive at why evidence supports this amendment.

One of the groups that spoke to us talked about under-represented voters. These are folks who work shift work, folks who are single parents, and we were told in an overwhelming number of cases that one more opportunity rather than the Tuesday between this time and this time is easier on child care. It's easier to not be doing shift work that day. For voters who are under-represented in the voting tallies—low income, single mom, that type of voter—Sunday voting has been identified as something positive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I have a question for the witnesses. Are any of the advance polls on Sundays?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes. As Ms. May has said, following Bill C-23 in the 41st Parliament, Sunday was introduced as a day of advance polling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Are we ready for the vote on NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

All those consequential ones have been not passed.

Next is amendment PV-3. This has some consequences too. This will also apply to PV-6, which, if you're interested, is on page 156; PV-9, on page 181; PV-12, on page 227; PV-13, on page 231; PV-15, on page 278; PV-16, on page 285; PV-17, on page 298; and PV-18, on page 304, because they are all related by the concept of coordination.

Also, if this is passed, CPC-150 on page 279 cannot be moved because it amends the same line as PV-15.

CPC-152 cannot be moved because it amends the same line as PV-16.

Could you introduce PV-3, Ms. May?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you said, there are many consequential amendments. This goes to the issue of parties or entities in an election campaign coordinating their activities in a way that is offensive to the principles of democracy—in other words, appearing in sheep's clothing to deliver a much more partisan message, under-the-table coordination, and that sort of thing.

With the better definitions that I'm providing, particularly in this first amendment, PV-3, I'm trying to present what things are not “coordination”. This will make it much easier as a standard by which a future court might be trying to judge whether there has been collusion, whether there has been a coordination that offends the Elections Act.

I'll just read the kinds of things that do not constitute coordination: an endorsement of a party in such a form, if it's an endorsement by “a person, group, corporation”, their members or “shareholders, as the case may be”, or inquiries that are being made “in respect of legislation or policy-related matters". That doesn't give rise to the idea that that was a coordinated effort.

Another is “joint attendance at a public event or an invitation to attend a public event”. This is very important, because quite often you see organizations inviting a candidate from one party plus a candidate from another party. It should be clear in the legislation that this is not coordination. That's not what the legislation is trying to get at.

There's also "communication of information that is not material” in carrying out partisan activities, advertising or election surveys. Again, it's trying to provide more clarity and create a standard that will be far easier to prove down the road to avoid the offence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Cullen and Ms. Sahota are next.

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

Through you to our witnesses, one of the scenarios that Ms. May just described is about a group inviting candidates. Let's say in the midst of an election, you have a woman's group or an indigenous group that says they'd like you to come and speak at this thing. That's something that happens in every election that I've ever seen. Would that trip the collusion aspect of what's envisioned in Bill C-76?

I have no problem with it if an anti-poverty group wants to invite candidates to speak or debate or whatever. If a women's group does that, it's more than normal. It's actually quite healthy. I think if I understood Ms. May's intervention correctly, she is trying in this amendment to clarify that this should be both legal and encouraged. However, perhaps I have something wrong in my understanding of it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If I could just add, to remind members of the committee, my amendments come from testimony you heard from Professor Mike Pal at the University of Ottawa law school.

He felt the collusion test would be difficult and that the coordination evidence would be easier to.... Well, the word “coordination” is used, but what does it mean? What is the difference between “collusion” and “coordination”?

By specifying what kinds of examples would not trigger the act, we're clarifying things. I don't want to assert that without my amendments, one would automatically assume that was collusion, but by having a carve-out in the definition section, I think we'll avoid a lot of confusion later on.

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

Let me make my question more specific, then.

Could it be interpreted under this act that the scenario I just described would potentially constitute collusion and therefore have effect on the third party that organized a debate or a survey amongst candidates standing for election?

[Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office]

The series of amendments that are being proposed by Ms. May lowers the threshold for what is prohibited from "collusion" to "coordination".

The commissioner would have to make a determination, but it's not meant to stop exchanges of ideas from organizations. If an organization were to do activities to support a party, that could be considered a non-monetary contribution to the party and would be covered under those provisions.

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

Chair, I have a last question on this piece.

In the scenario I describe, could a third party—because that's what we're predominantly talking about, right?—in coordinating a survey of candidates, a debate of candidates, be under risk of being deemed in that "collusion" frame, which is a very strong term, a strong idea? It's somehow that they're being manipulative over the election rather than just making evidence available to voters.

[Manon Paquet]

In a scenario like the one you describe, I would say it would be unlikely, given that it's also working with multiple parties to organize such an event. It's not necessarily working with one specific party to get to a certain result.

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

Okay, thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I think it's a really bad idea when you take a term that's really specific and already defines coordination that is unethical in the word "collusion" and then take it to a broader word and have to possibly make a list of what that means and what it excludes.

I think we're really muddying the waters and casting a net that's far too large to solve a problem that maybe is not.... I think a targeted approach is always best. From a legal standpoint, I think it's better when we have more concise language rather than getting into definitions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further discussion?

All in favour of PV-3 and all of the attendant ramifications?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment CPC-3, can someone relate it to the Government of Canada again?

Go ahead, Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie]

First of all, I'm going to go back and apologize. I will say that the previous amendment that I was referring to was specifically in regard to ministerial travel. In discussions with the minister, she did make it clear that this was something that would not be of discussion.

However, I do feel that in CPC-3 the inclusion of “the Prime Minister or another Minister” under the definition of partisan advertising is keeping and in alignment with her commitment to our committee here today. With that, and with her commitment, I would ask for support for this amendment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

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

I may have missed that. This is attempting to do what? Is it to affect the way that the government, the minister specifically...?

Is it in similar vein to the previous...?

[Stephanie Kusie]

No, I don't think it's previous....

I think it is including specifically the actions of the prime minister and the ministers under the definition of partisan advertising.

Further, it's to the commitment made by the minister in her appearance today to limit the presence of the government advertising in the pre-writ period to align the government of the day with the rules that essentially exist for third and registered parties, with everyone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Mr. Graham.

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

I have just a quick question.

As I read this, as I understand it, if the revenue agency says, “Don't forget to file your taxes”, because the election is during the tax season, that would be illegal and it would count toward the party's expenses. I don't support that.

Thanks.