Evidence of meeting #123 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 clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I think the other motion will allow us to learn more about the context, but I'm just saying that if the concern is about results not being given by polling division, the act already requires that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Just as a clarification, this clause is a pre-coordinating amendment for the CPC-72 amendment, which we'll debate later on. It's just adding that definition to the election document. Because of where those election documents fall in the bill itself, we have to consider it first, before we move on to CPC-72.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there any further discussion?
We're ready for the vote on that amendment.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay. Next is amendment PV-1.
Go ahead, Ms. May.
5:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before we launch into the last amendment, I want to put on the record that the process by which I find myself here is still offensive and difficult for me. This committee's motion requires that I be in the committee to present amendments at clause-by-clause consideration. This is a substantial interference with my ability to do my work, because we quite often have committee hearings and clause-by-clause consideration at the same time, with two different committees meeting on clause-by-clause at the same time. It's a motion I don't welcome, but I do welcome the opportunity to be among colleagues and present these amendments, which I will do as quickly as I can, given how many the committee has to deal with on Bill C-76.
My first amendment falls under the subsection, just to remind people, where election advertising has a carve-out that says election advertising does not mean one of these things. Election advertising, for instance, in the bill as it now is drafted doesn't include transmission of an editorial or an opinion in a newspaper.
The concern I'm trying to address in this amendment comes from non-governmental organizations that are not actually in any way, shape or form advocating or in any way being partisan, but want to publish results, for instance, of surveys—in other words, it's for information purposes, but they're not third parties.
To enter into a campaign as a third party suggests you're favouring someone. That could be very difficult, for instance, for a charity that must not take a position in an election, but which, by its mandate, has an educational function. To ensure that the educational function is not precluded, I have the amendment that adds, for greater certainty, that election advertising does not include “general advocacy on an issue that does not actively promote or oppose a registered party or the election of a candidate”.
Then the rest is consistent with that to ensure we also are not considering it as identifying or commenting on the position taken on an issue by a registered party or nomination contestant and so on.
I hope that's clear. We already have heard the minister's answer, so I'm relatively sure about what's going to happen to my amendment, but I think it's really important that the voices of non-government organizations that are not advocates and are not partisan be allowed to be heard, because those voices are an extremely important source of information for voters. Registering as a third party is not only onerous but may mislead people as to the intention of civil society organizations that are completely non-partisan.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question through you to Ms. May.
Thank you for the amendment. I know it's not directly related, but recently we've seen new finance rules coming out from the CRA with regard to what charities can advocate for a period and receive donations. That was introduced under the last regime. It was shot down in I think the Ontario Superior Court a while ago. The government has suggested it is going to appeal.
I'm wondering about the combination of the ability of charities to receive money to advocate. These are environment groups and anti-poverty groups, and religious organizations, I would imagine, fall under this category as well, with their inability to advocate for the issues that they care about in elections.
We all know as political actors that if Canadians are going to donate to a political party to advocate for their views, they get a very generous tax receipt back. If they donate to some of these charities, they get much less back, yet Canadians continue to use charities to advocate for issues.
The challenge I pose to you is this: does this survive the challenge at court? That's going to be some of the balance in this bill, Chair: it's of some concern whether some of the restriction the government is against would be survivable at court versus the freedom of speech amendments that the court has to deal with.
Does your amendment to this bill allow the voices of charities and those that support them to continue their advocacy?
You mentioned surveys. If a charity comes forward and ranks parties and says, “We're an anti-poverty or religious charity, and we like this party, this candidate”, how can that not be perceived by the public and the media as just straight-up partisan activity?
5:10 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I would agree with you. That would look like partisan activity if they said, “We like what this party has said.” We're talking about publishing the results so someone can read them and say, “Oh, this party has this position.” In other words, it's pure education. It's not saying, “We like what this party said because we surveyed them.” It's saying, “Here is a survey we circulated to the parties in this election and individual candidates on a riding-by-riding basis.” One must remember there are independent candidates seeking to become members of Parliament. In our Westminster parliamentary system, they have just as much a right to get the public's attention as those who are in the larger parties.
The reality is that my amendment would actually make the legislation more robust in protecting free speech, without increasing the risk that third party actors will use their position to engage in partisan activities through the back door. They'd have to be very clear that it's general advocacy on an issue that does not promote or oppose. That means it's straight-up public information. It's education.
I don't want to take too long, but I have to say I have experienced this at the Sierra Club of Canada. Starting in 2006 and without any changes to the law, CRA information bulletins began to restrict very significantly the ability of NGOs to speak during election campaigns, even about the most basic fact-checking around issues on which they have expertise. We invite NGOs to testify at committees because they have expertise. That expertise is very valuable to a voter.
Political parties have rights to speak, but voters can quite appropriately apply a discount factor to the truth of what they hear from political parties during election campaigns. However, if they know there's a group they trust, whether it's CARE Canada or Oxfam speaking to poverty issues or a major organization that advocates for the rights of women like Equal Voice, their ability to publish a survey should not fall under the election advertising provisions of Bill C-76.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there any further discussion?
Are we prepared to vote?
You'd like a recorded vote?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We will have a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
We have CPC-1, tabled by Mr. Richards. Could someone briefly explain the intent of CPC-1?
5:15 p.m.
A voice
You have to move it first.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
This is a new one, because I believe now that PV-1 has been defeated, the other is moot.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It will also be reference number 9950080, if you want to follow. It's the one that was handed out.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, do you in each case want the whole thing to be read out, “I move...”, and have us go through the whole thing, or would you prefer us to just go right into the explanation?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
We can skip “I move that this be amended in line such-and-such on page....” That can all be skipped?
