Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 16th, 2018

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That happens, doesn't it?

No, but it's available to all parties. An environmental group comes forward and they've hired Ipsos or someone to go out and survey feelings on climate change. That survey is then made available to all parties, or maybe not all parties but some, which then influences the way.... We're dealing with this act, but we're now just asking about the way things happen. Focus group work, messaging, all of that stuff, it's not hidden. This is a thing that happens quite frequently.

Would you deem that to be a non-monetary contribution?

[Trevor Knight]

Under the current act, if a good or a service is provided to a party for less than its commercial value, you have to ask if it's free, but if it's free to everyone, then it's not a contribution.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So that's the way third parties get around this. They have to make it available to everybody, a service like a polling or a bit of research.

[Trevor Knight]

Yes.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. That's curious.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

—or they can just make the information public.

[Anne Lawson]

Exactly.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

A typical case is a third party that would want to influence parties. They could have a web page that is focused on a particular issue and include a lot of data, including survey data.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

That would be completely acceptable.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—as long as it's either shared with all parties or shared publicly.

But if a third party were to say they were only providing this to you, for whatever reasons, then they'd trigger the non-monetary contribution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

I just want to step back and look back to the collusion element in this amendment. What we're really talking about is using third parties to get around some spending limits.

A group like Canada 2020, for example, which conducts—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

If they conduct extensive public opinion surveys, which are again extremely valuable, and are able to get around the pre-writ spending, would something like that be captured in this amendment, or in the bill as it sits?

Is the effort to get around the spending cap by having a group like Canada 2020 do the work and provide that information captured within this? We're looking specifically at the spending limit side of things and the collusion.

[Trevor Knight]

The section we're dealing with, proposed section 349.3, isn't so much about the spending, the collusion to avoid spending limits, although that may be the motivation for the sharing. It talks about no third party, no registered party, acting in collusion in order to influence the third party in what it does, under the current one. The amendment then would expand that to influence the registered party, as you say, making it a two-way street.

In terms of the question you asked, I think that with collusion under the current act, there are already provisions talking about non-monetary contributions under the current act and avoiding the spending limit under the current act. I think those would be relevant to that.

This is more directed at a specific thing, influencing how the third party acts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

I have one final point.

Right now, if Canada 2020 tells the Liberal Party, “We're going to advertise on X, and you can advertise on Y and Z.” Then the reverse, the Liberal Party tells Canada 2020 it's advertising on Y and Z, and they can advertise on X. One way is collusion; one way is not collusion. Within our amendment, both ways are collusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there any further discussion?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Next is amendment PV-7.

Ms. May

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

Mr. Chair, my intention with amendment PV-7 is to extend the prohibitions on foreign money for political party or third party messaging not just in the pre-writ period but at all times.

I know there are other amendments to the same effect, and some of them were ahead of this amendment. I'm afraid, being in and out, I'm not quite certain how my amendments survive at this point, but I'm hoping to tighten up the rules so there's no foreign money or third party political messaging influenced by foreign money at any time, not just pre-writ.

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

I support Ms. May's sentiments. Anything we can do to get foreign money out of our elections, we're going to support. We'll be voting in favour of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.