Evidence of meeting #125 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.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yes.
You're going to have them argue that the other platforms, if they do violate...by saying, “Oh, it doesn't really matter, they're just concerned about this area.” They've specifically said that you have to have a tag line for social media, but we've never defined that you have to have it for any of the other specific platforms.
That's what I think the chair is getting at. We may make it seem that this is more important than the other ones, and then violators for the other ones maybe don't get in as much trouble. So to keep it consistent—
NDP
LCdr Jean-François Morin
For the sake of debate, I would just like to add that the definition of "online platform" that was just adopted following Ms. Sahota's amendment would not apply to this section here, because we are not using that exact expression.
With regard to the risk that I was referring to earlier, this amendment would add the following proposed text to existing section 320:
The authorization shall also be clearly visible in all election advertising messages transmitted by means of the Internet or any other digital network.
What I meant by saying that we were trying to craft the legislation in a technologically neutral way is that by saying here that this tag line should be clearly visible when it is transmitted by the Internet, it raises the issue that if we just post signs on the street, then they don't have to be clearly visible on that sign; they can be written in font 1.1, and we'll need a magnifying glass to read it. Right?
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Your suggestion is that it's already covered globally, and that this could be problematic if it were....
You're not as enthusiastic about this.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
When we state one rule for one specific media, and when we interpret the law in the aftermath, it always raises the question that if Parliament was that specific for a specific media, well, maybe they thought the others were not important, or that a different rule would apply to other media. That's the concern I was trying to convey earlier.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In terms of the definition piece, Chair, at the very end, where we seek a definition, we could simply modify this to include reference back to Ruby's definition that we just passed for social media platforms, if that's the concern. When we drafted this, we didn't have that, so it was impossible to make them sync.
I mean, I'm not going to die on this hill. If we think we're getting to something that will effectively do what we want it to do, then let's get at it. I remain a bit concerned, though. I like discretionary powers for Elections Canada, but I just don't know—no offence, present company included—if we've kept pace with the effectiveness.
Let's put it this way: The British and the Americans absolutely did not keep pace with the effectiveness of dark money and advertising on the social media platforms that had demonstrable effect on the outcomes of their most recent votes. I would be encouraged, but a little surprised, if Elections Canada were so much dramatically better than their British or American counterparts. I know we all share information. The effort here is to become more and more transparent with the messages Canadians are getting, pre-writ and writ, on what we generally refer to as social media platforms, as defined by Ruby earlier.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
This particular one is specifically the parties and the candidates, right?
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's right, but again, the three of them hang together.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Chair, I appreciate Mr. Cullen's suggestion. Perhaps we could work the definition from Ms. Sahota into this. I'd be happy with that, but I don't really want the committee to waste its time redrafting that if it's something that's not acceptable.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We've had the discussion. Folks can weigh in on it, and like it or not like it. Then we can move on.
If folks are going to like it, then I would suggest kind of a weird vote where this conditionally passes and we do include the definition of social media platform that the committee just passed.
Does everyone understand what I'm suggesting?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
That is applied to NDP-18, NDP-20 and NDP-25. That was a new clause, so that particular new clause does not exist now.
Clause 207 has no amendments.
(Clause 207 agreed to on division)
(Clause 208 agreed to)
New clause 208.1 is being proposed. LIB-25 is consequential to LIB-24, which passed. New clause 208.1 has already passed because it's consequential.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
There are no amendments to clauses 209 and 210.
(Clauses 209 and 210 agreed to)
(On clause 211)
There's amendment CPC-80.
If the Conservatives could explain this amendment, that would be great.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Essentially, it's clarifying that multi-riding opinion polls cannot be released on election day when voting is open in any of the regions polled. I think that's fairly clear in terms of the possibility of the polls influencing voters as they go to polls within the regions that have been polled.
I just think this type of influence is something we don't want to see within our electoral system. I'll leave it at that.
