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

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you.

Will your government also ensure that major announcements, particularly spending announcements, cannot be made during the pre-writ period?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

If it's outside the government advertising policy, then government activity will continue as normal, as with all activity of members of Parliament.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Thank you.

Will your government ensure that government resources are not used to pay for campaign-style events—for example, town halls featuring the Prime Minister or other ministers, public consultations featuring elected politicians as opposed to public servants, or other publicly televised or streamed events during the pre-writ period?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

As I said, any activity that would take place by the government normally would continue during that period, as is the case with all members of Parliament and the House.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Will your government ensure that government departments cannot release public opinion research, reports, or other documents that may influence public opinion, except those of course required by law during the pre-writ period?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

As I've said, normal government activity will continue until the writ period.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Will your government ensure that no major announcements about policy intentions or budget projections can be made during the pre-writ period?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Normal government activity will continue during the pre-writ period.

[Stephanie Kusie]

That concludes my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Are there any other Conservatives? Two and a half minutes are left.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back to the original question asked in the first round by Ms. Kusie regarding the segregated bank accounts.

You threw back that we know well, as candidates, that we open our own campaign bank account during the writ period, and that's true; we as politicians do open our bank accounts, but the fact is that our riding associations cannot receive foreign funding at all.

I'm going back to the recommendation made by Professor Turnbull, a former adviser to your department, who recommended that there be a segregated bank account for a third party wherein all that information can be tracked, including where those donations came from through the entire period leading up to a pre-writ and a writ period. Why is it that you don't support what I would think is a common sense approach by your former adviser to segregate those bank accounts to ensure that there is absolutely no chance, and verifiably no chance, that foreign funding is being used in those situations?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Again, Bill C-76 does require third parties that intend to spend or that have spent up to $500 on advertising to open a bank account and to disclose any money that's going into it and where all the money came from. I think this is a reasonable provision to ensure the integrity of where and how they are using their money.

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

Again, I would only point out that by not having a separate segregated bank account for the entire duration when that money flows in, there's nothing preventing foreign funding from commingling in another bank account and being transferred to that bank account for the writ and pre-writ period.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

In Bill C-76 they have to account for where the money comes from and they also have to attest that there is no foreign funding in that bank account. If they do not do that, then they would be breaking the law if Bill C-76 passes. I think that is substantial.

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

Again I would only point out as well that this can only happen after the fact. I'll leave it at that.

Going back to the question just asked by Ms. Kusie about ministerial and parliamentary travel, in this bill you're limiting what an opposition party can do during the pre-writ period, but at the same time you're not limiting what a government can do. I know you said “normal government activity”, but normal government activity often mirrors—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

You're conflating partisan activity with the work of members of Parliament, and those are two separate things.

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

So campaign-style—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Political parties will have a fair and level playing field with regard to the activities. It's only with regard to partisan advertising. Members of Parliament, regardless of what political party they are in, will be able to carry out their normal activities and duties as required by their position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now we'll go on to Ms. May. Welcome to the committee.

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

Thank you again.

I want to thank Mr. Bittle, who gave me his slot. It was very kind of you.

Thank you, Minister. The last time you were here relates to one of my questions, which was a discussion of what we would do about leaders' debates.

I just thought I'd take the opportunity to say that I am supportive of the bill. The way I see it, it's a vast improvement on the current state of affairs. It really matters to get it passed before we go back to the polls in fall 2019.

However, I do see—and I agree with my colleague Mr. Cullen—that there are a number of lost opportunities here. It didn't accomplish what it could have done in a number of areas.

My overarching question is, first, how willing are you and this government to accept any of the amendments that are being put forward with the goal of improving those areas where your government, and you personally, are on the record as wanting to see more?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It's good to see you here as well. It's always nice to have you at committee or elsewhere.

As I have stated publicly before, we are willing to entertain amendments. Of course, it depends on what the amendment is and whether it's within the scope that we're willing to move forward on. However, there are a number of amendments that have been presented that I think can be accepted.

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

May I ask you specifically about the privacy piece, which is one that is worrying me? As a matter of fact, when the Conservatives' Bill C-23 was before this committee in the 41st Parliament, I put forward an amendment that political parties would not be exempt from the Privacy Act.

My amendment in this case is more specific to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA. This would be much more effective, I think everyone would agree, than each party coming up with its own privacy plan and tabling it.

Can you give me a sense—and I know this is highly specific—of whether there is any willingness to entertain this amendment, and if not, why not?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I would like to see a broader study of privacy in political parties. I think it's really important. This legislation is strongly based on the recommendations that PROC put forward over the course of 2016 and 2017, and with regard to privacy there was not unanimity with regard to what we should do moving forward. I think it does require a deeper dive.

I think that political parties do play an essential role in terms of engaging Canadians in the political process, and I think it would be worthwhile to understand how we could apply a privacy framework in a way that enables parties to continue to do that work and engage with Canadians, but also to ensure that we're doing more with regard to privacy.

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

Thank you.

The first amendment I have up is actually the first amendment in the whole package, and I just wondered if I could get your reaction. There is currently, as you know, a quite public controversy in Quebec between one of Quebec's leading environmental groups, Équiterre, and the view taken by the Quebec election officials as to what is election advertising and what isn't.

In my former life as executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada, there was a new information bulletin put forward by CRA in the 2006 election that made some groups think, “We can't even publish surveys. We can't say that this is where the Conservatives stand, this is where the Liberals stand, and this is where the NDP stand, and take your pick.” The elections advertising clarification that I am putting forward would ensure that we distinguish between partisan activities and public information activities. I'm wondering if you have any views of whether the amendment I have put forward might be acceptable to the government.