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.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there further discussion?
We'll have a recorded vote on CPC-65 as amended.
(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we'll go on to CPC-66.
Mrs. Kusie, go ahead.
12:40 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Essentially, this amendment attempts to treat as foreign third parties entities that are incorporated in Canada but with foreign direction, and whose primary purpose is political activity.
I don't think it's any secret that we had a number of these types of entities in the 2015 election. These entities were operating in Canada and may or may not have claimed to be Canadian entities. In reality, they were actually foreign entities, because their direction was external to Canada. Their primary purpose was political activity. This wasn't in regard to some other type of advocacy. It wasn't in regard to corporate activity. It wasn't in regard to charitable activity. These were external organizations that specifically operated in Canada with political purposes, which is essentially, I would say, both foreign influence and foreign interference.
With that, we propose this amendment in an effort to ensure that this type of possible activity is absolutely eliminated going forward. I would really urge the government to consider supporting this in an effort to show Canadians that it is committed to only Canadian political activity within Canada.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Chair. I have a question for our officials.
Would it be possible for a foreign entity to simply incorporate within Canada and then be considered as a third party within a Canadian election, if this amendment were not in place?
12:40 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I am not an expert in incorporation law, so I won't answer that portion of your question, just because I don't know.
That being said, we were just discussing the application of the charter a few minutes ago. I would point out that a corporation that is present in Canada would also have freedom of speech rights in Canada. There could be a risk associated with such an amendment.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay. Is there any discussion? Are we ready for the vote?
Stephanie, go ahead.
12:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I would like a response from the government as to why they are not in support of this amendment. There have been some instances where we've made amendments similar in spirit to Liberal amendments, but it appears that's not the case this time.
Why is the government opposed to this?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
As was mentioned, it's very similar to the last one, but this one clarifies even more that this company has a presence in Canada. Therefore, we wouldn't want to go outside of election periods to limit their freedom of expression.
12:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
It's foreign expression with the intent and purpose of political activity. It's not Canadian expression, because it's being directed from somewhere external to Canada. So even if it is freedom of expression, it's not Canadian expression. It's foreign expression. I don't understand why we wouldn't attempt to prohibit that.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I'll just go back to proposed section 282. We're talking about a foreign entity whose only activity in Canada is the political influence. That's in proposed paragraph 282.4(1)(b). We're talking about the only purpose being that of influencing an election. I think that's where the real concern is. There's a gaping loophole here through which you could drive a Mack truck with this influence.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It's a foreign entity. Absolutely the only purpose it's become incorporated is to influence an election. I think that's a pretty big loophole.
12:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
While we're not in this part of the act, I would like to point out that such a company or such an entity would be considered a third party under part 17 of the act. Part 17 of the act includes amendments from both the Liberals and the Conservatives to restrict foreign funding for third parties. I would just like to point out that even if that corporation were present in Canada, as a third party it would be subject to amendments to come and it wouldn't be able to use foreign money to fund its activities here in Canada. This is part of a greater scheme that includes part 17.
12:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
The problem goes further than that. We don't have the safeguards in place to ensure that with absolute certainty, in terms of the specific bank accounts or reporting. I don't think there is certainty even with those clauses, Mr. Morin.
12:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
I don't have any further comment on that.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
When you said that the third party thing applies, does that apply through the writ period, the pre-writ period and the rest of the year?
12:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The proposed subsection we're talking about, 282.4(1), applies only during the writ period. Part 17 of the act includes a period during the pre-writ period and the writ period, and one Liberal amendment contemplates adding a new division that would cover periods that are neither election periods nor pre-election periods.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
So, in effect, because it wouldn't have any money, the foreign body couldn't do anything all year round, if the Liberal amendment you just talked about was passed.
