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.
4 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's just adding a definition clause into the act to be able to know what social media advertising is. It's pretty flat.
October 16th, 2018 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I guess Mr. Cullen doesn't find the amendment very exciting, but it's very necessary.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
It's very necessary. I am defining “online platform” in the act, so that we know, going forward with the other sections, how it's defined.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 206 as amended agreed to)
There's a new clause 206.1 proposed in amendment NDP-17. You should know that the vote on this also will be applied to amendments NDP-18, NDP-20, and NDP-25.
Perhaps Mr. Cullen could describe what this amendment does.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, let's liven this one up.
This is the proposed section that we heard about from multiple witnesses concerning the rules that apply for the so-called traditional media when someone, a third party or a political party, takes out an ad, requiring them to identify themselves. Social media have not had these rules applied to them in previous elections, and the application has been inconsistent.
Particularly, the threat to our elections is that people are able to propagate either vote enhancement ads—trying to get someone on an issue or a candidate voting for something—or suppression ads, which we saw actually much more of in the Brexit example, in which people were able to push voters against an idea or voting a certain way, all the while not identifying themselves and identifying who paid for the ad.
It's fundamental to our democracy that when someone pays for ad space—and there are some deep resources on some of these issues among some of these parties—they should simply identify themselves. This does this in the clearest way we could find.
As you noted, Mr. Chair, the application of this goes to other aspects, because it affects other parts of advertising: the pre-election advertising, which is taken care of in amendment NDP-18; and third party advertising, which is in amendment NDP-20, doing the exact same thing: having to identify yourself.
There are other amendments coming, I think Liberal amendments, concerning a repository of ads, so that the social media companies have to keep the ads on hand for some period of time.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
You're saying basically that if someone advertises in a newspaper, they have to say who they are, but if they advertise on Facebook, they don't have to.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes. If the Liberal Party takes out an ad saying “we're wonderful”, paid for by them, as you well know, or if a registered third party advertiser takes out an ad on the radio, they, too, have to identify themselves. The traditional media, from my understanding—I could be wrong—have to keep a repository of the those ads, which can be then sought back.
The effects of these things are not always identified by voters immediately. If they think there is a problem or something suspicious, it's often even after the election has happened, and you have to be able to go back to this.
I don't believe any of these sections creates such a repository, but I think it is coming.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Section 320 of the act, which is not open in the bill, is the one being considered by the amendment now before us. Section 320 already requires that the candidate or registered party publishing election advertising insert a mention that the message has been authorized.
To the extent possible, the Canada Elections Act and the bill before us have been drafted with the idea of technological neutrality. We try as much as possible not to identify different media of communication, because we want the rules to be applicable as broadly as possible.
When he testified before you just a few weeks ago, Mr. Cullen, you asked the Chief Electoral Officer a question regarding the application of section 320. You asked him whether it was already applicable to the Internet. My understanding is that he said yes.
The risk, when we start to identify various media in the act, is that doing so will raise questions about the applicability of the rule to other forms of communication.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, but we're not going to identify people standing on roofs and yelling as another form of communication.
We just went through and identified what social media is within the act. It seemed.... I understand what you're saying, and I don't recall that testimony being that clear, but I'll refer back to it in terms of the Chief Electoral Officer saying that definitely. It seemed to me that much of the testimony we received was that there were in fact two standards; that's why we just went though and defined what a social media platform is.
If all this does is alert the social media, especially not the very largest ones.... I think Facebook, Twitter and those ones already have policies in hand and are preparing them for the next election; they've told us such. But I think some of the smaller ones, maybe less known.... Also, we have triggers that are in amendments that are coming. Myspace I think really needs to get their game going—
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—because they're losing share.
I don't see a harm in naming this, particularly to alert those new forms of media, which an increasing number of Canadians get much of their media consumption from these days.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We have a big list, but before I go to it, you're basically saying that all the advertising, no matter where they do it, is covered, and you want to alert social media especially.
Mr. Nater.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Chair, I'm inclined to support it. Perhaps Elections Canada could provide us an interpretation.
A Facebook post or a tweet that's not boosted or is not promoted with dollar figures is simply a Facebook post that I or someone on my campaign team puts out and wouldn't be captured under this. This would just be paid advertising.
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada
That's correct.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Okay. If I send out a tweet, I don't have to use my precious characters to say “authorized by the official agent for John Nater”. That's my only concern, and I think that's good.
