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.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Exactly. Currently as it is, it's a one-way street. Here we make it a two-way street: third parties to political parties, political parties to third parties. It kind of strengthens the....
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
In that vein, sometimes third parties, and they might be anti-poverty groups or they might be pro-business groups. They've conducted a survey amongst their members. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce does this a lot. They share that information with us, trying to influence us, but also trying to inform us of what their members are thinking.
Would we see that as somehow anti-democratic or buying undue influence? I don't know. Of course there are examples where they don't, but generally groups try to share them as widely as possible. They're incentivized to do so. They can gather information in ways that a pollster or we, as political parties, can't. Is it not worthwhile and valuable?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yes. In agreement with Nathan, I think this would criminalize the usual communications between civil society and potential candidates.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I just think we need to step back. This is more about circumventing spending limits. This is what we're looking at here: using third parties, including back and forth, to basically circumvent spending limits, rather than—
6:10 p.m.
NDP
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Outsourcing polling to third parties, and in our amendment we say vice-versa as well.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Chair, could I ask Monsieur Morin to weigh in on this? Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Mr. Chair, the provision found at subsection 349.3(1) was designed in an one-way stream for two reasons, one of them being that of course if it's only a matter of information and ideas, well, political parties are there to collect these ideas and represent a large segment of the population in their attempt to represent them. But also if we're talking more here about the provision of resources, for example, an advertising campaign that has been designed by the third party, then it would be considered a non-monetary contribution to the party and it would already be prohibited by provisions of part 18 on political financing.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Just to clarify, then, if a third party were to share information with a political party and that would then shape its advertising campaign, would that be captured in the act? Is that what you're saying? The polling information that's been conducted by a third party is then shaping the advertising campaign for a political party. Would that be captured within the act?
6:15 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
As a non-monetary contribution?
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
As anything. Would it be considered collusion or is it...?
6:15 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
If it's a product or service that fits the definition of a non-monetary contribution, then it would clearly be considered a non-monetary contribution. Of course only individuals can provide these contributions to registered entities, and only to the limit that is prescribed by part 18. So, yes, it would be covered.
6:15 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll just make a distinction, then. Just to pick an example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce comes to each of us, provides very expensive surveying of its members. That information then helps parties craft particular messaging, whether it's advertising or policy and platform messaging. Could that be deemed under the current provisions or these changes as a non-monetary contribution? To go out and do that surveying yourself would be incredibly expensive, yet it also performs this public education role that civil society is trying to do.
6:15 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
This is civil society so to the extent that they are only reaching out to various political parties in an attempt to influence the parties' policies, I think it would probably be acceptable. Elections Canada's auditors would need to look into that.
There is also a regime where political parties can ask for guidelines under the Canada Elections Act so that is clearly a question that could be clarified sometime in the future. What I was referring to was more the case of a third party that would provide a ready-to-use product or service to one specific party for the purpose of helping that specific party.
Do you have comments on the concept of non-monetary contributions?
6:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada
I guess it would depend on the facts. The obvious case would be a survey that a polling company normally would sell being given to a political party. That would clearly be a non-monetary contribution.
