Evidence of meeting #124 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 election.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
It could have activities in Canada, but it could not fund these activities with foreign funds. It would need to get money from a Canadian source for partisan activities.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
It's such a broad definition of what could be seen as interference. Take, for instance, the emergency debate we had yesterday on climate change. A UN report gets put out. Do we see acts like that as maybe interference in elections when there are issues that maybe certain parties side with and other parties do not? I worry that we may be limiting organizations' ability to express their points of view on issues. It's a risk, too, if we go too far.
I do understand the other risk, when it's done in a malicious way with false evidence and statements—although you can't call it “evidence”—false information put out to sway actors. However, if it's just information that happens to influence, then are we going too far?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We'll have a recorded vote on CPC-66.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll go on to CPC-67.
Mrs. Kusie, go ahead.
12:50 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Actually, this is in a similar vein, but not entirely. It's in a similar spirit, in a very broad sense, of increasing the threshold for foreign entities to establish bona fide Canadian connections. It is making sure that third parties are Canadian entities, and that the proper thresholds are put in place in an effort to establish them as Canadian players and not those who are external.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Is the objective of the amendment to change it from “only activity” to “primary purpose”? That addresses the problem you were complaining about earlier, and it's quite supportable.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there any further discussion on CPC-67?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have a couple more amendments on this clause, so if we could finish this clause before we break, that would be great.
We'll now go on to LIB-20. If LIB-20 is adopted, CPC-67.1 cannot be moved as it amends the same line.
Could someone present LIB-20?
Ms. Sahota, go ahead.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I'll present in support of this amendment, since I proposed it.
This is basically to remove the redundancy and ambiguity, and to move the foreign entity stuff and lump it in together. The Commissioner of Canada Elections had indicated to PROC that, in his view, proposed paragraph 282.4(2)(b) is redundant, since a foreign entity could already be charged for breach of either proposed section 91 or proposed paragraph 282.4(2)(c).
Bill C-76 would move the content of section 331 of the Canada Elections Act, which prohibits foreign interference in Canadian elections, to a comprehensive provision, which is in proposed section 282.4, setting out exactly what constitutes undue influence by a foreigner. It just makes it neater, and you know where to find all of those provisions.
October 16th, 2018 / 12:55 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
This amendment actually implements the recommendation of the Commissioner of Canada Elections exactly in the way that Ms. Sahota explained it. Someone making a false statement that is prohibited could be charged with the offence associated with proposed section 91, and could also be charged under the provision at proposed section 282.4 with reference to (2)(c), which would now become (2)(b).
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there further discussion?
I think Mr. Nater might have something to say.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there any further discussion on Liberal-20?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
CPC-67.1 cannot be discussed because it amends the same line.
We have two more. Next is CPC-68.
Stephanie, go ahead.
12:55 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
This amendment attempts to address the narrow broadcasting exception for foreign interference in elections.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Chair, I just have a bit of information here.
We don't want to see normal courses of action, such as letters to the editor, captured within this. That's obviously within the act. Specifically, this amendment is looking to capture foreign programming and foreign influence where the purpose of that program or publication is specifically to influence the election. We're talking about specific instances. We're not talking about the Canadian example. We're talking about foreign examples, where programming and publications are specifically intended to influence an election, including the way in which an elector votes. That's what we're really getting at here—foreign publications influencing a Canadian election.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I'd like to ask the officials what effect the amendment would have. I don't think it will do much to change how the provision operates.
12:55 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
The exception that is provided at proposed paragraph 282.4(3)(c) is for the transmission of programs, or print such as an editorial, a debate, a speech, an interview, a column, a letter, etc. This language has been used for a long time in the Canada Elections Act as an exception to the definition of election advertising, so there is a history to that kind of exception in the act.
I'm not sure that a program or a publication whose primary purpose is to influence an elector to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate or party, would actually be recognized within that existing exception. Of course, that would be for the courts to interpret eventually, but I would be suspicious about whether a partisan program would be recognized within this recognized exception.
1 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Maybe I'll ask our officials by using an example. Let's say a late night talk show host in New York or L.A. dedicates an entire episode during the writ period to how great a Canadian leader is. Whoever that leader might be, and whatever talk show that might be, would that be captured? We're all thinking of Jagmeet Singh.
Would that be captured?