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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Potential new clause 213.1 is created by CPC-81. The results of this vote will apply to CPC-147. If it passes, LIB-47 cannot be moved because it deals with the same line.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 214 to 216 inclusive agreed to)
Amendment CPC-82 proposes new clause 216.1.
Stephanie.
4:50 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I think it's pretty straightforward. It requires the CRTC to report to Parliament on its administration of the voter contact registry after each election. If we are going to enact the voter contact registry, then we probably should have a report on the administration of the registry.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
As we know from this committee, everything for which the CEO is responsible he reports to Parliament and eventually to this committee. There are certain things for which the CRTC is responsible, but the CRTC is not required to report on that after an election. This would be consistent with reporting requirements of both the CEO, which are already in there, and the CRTC as well. For example, in respect of the voter contact registry, which has been an issue in the past, the CRTC would be required to report to Parliament and then eventually to this committee.
4:50 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The motion is pretty straightforward. It's really a policy decision.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
It's a policy as to whether we ask someone else to report the same as Elections Canada. You do confirm, however, that those people don't have to report at the moment.
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Regulatory Affairs, Elections Canada
Yes, I can confirm that, and I can also indicate that when we did the recommendations report with the previous chief electoral officer we consulted with the CRTC and presented on their behalf certain recommendations respecting these portions of the act. However, they certainly had no obligation themselves to come forward with a report.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
If consultation happened in the past, it's better to receive one consolidated report, keeping in mind the global aspects of the election and what happened. It seems to be cleaner, easier and better to have one report from the Chief Electoral Officer.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
For me, the only thing to wrap up is that there's no requirement that the CRTC report. This would have a requirement, so....
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We're ready to vote on CPC-82 to require the CRTC to report to Parliament, which would create a new clause 216.1.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 217 to 221 inclusive agreed to)
Does anyone need a five-minute break? Maybe we'll wait a few minutes, because supper is coming at five. Maybe we can make the break long enough so that people will take a look at those four clauses we stood down. We'll come back to them right after the break.
We'll go a little bit farther.
(On clause 222)
This is a complicated one. The vote on LIB-26 will apply to LIB-27 on page 149, LIB-29 on page 174, LIB-33 on page 201, LIB-37 on page 229, LIB-44 on page 272, LIB-46 on page 277, LIB-50 on page 283, LIB-56 on page 308, and LIB-59 on page 311, as they are linked together by the same new division 0.1 on the use of foreign funds by third parties.
Also, if LIB-26 is adopted, CPC-95 on page 175 and CPC-96 on page 176 cannot be moved as they amend the same line as LIB-29, which was a consequence to LIB-26.
CPC-108 on page 202 and CPC-109 on page 203 similarly cannot be moved, as they amend the same lines as LIB-33, which was also consequential to LIB-26.
Does anyone need any of that repeated? There are a lot of consequences to this vote.
Can someone present LIB-26? Mr. Graham.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The proposed division prevents foreign funding of partisan activities, whether during the election or not, and defines third party activity outside of the election period for the purposes of this prohibition. It's a fairly straightforward change to make.
4:55 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I'd like to ask the officials to imagine a hypothetical situation where a foreign entity donates $1 million to a Canadian organization to help with its administration costs, and the organization, which has raised money to cover these costs, suddenly finds itself with an extra $1 million available to campaign in Canada.
Would this type of foreign funding and interference remain legal with this amendment?
4:55 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
This question is addressed by amendment LIB-27. Amendment LIB-27 defines advertising....
4:55 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The two substantive provisions are found at proposed sections 349.02 and 349.03.
Proposed section 349.02 prohibits the use of funds
for a partisan activity, for advertising or for an election survey if the source of the funds is a foreign entity.
Then, proposed section 349.03 provides for anti-circumvention provisions and states:
No third party shall
(a) circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, the prohibition under section 349.02; or
(b) act in collusion with another person or entity for that purpose.
Of course, every question is a question of fact, and it's very difficult to assess a specific situation in the void, but the question you've raised about the commingling of money could potentially constitute an “attempt to circumvent” in cases where it is quite obvious that the money was received for this purpose and that it replaced Canadian funds that were diverted to the third party's expenses.
4:55 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
However, the Liberal amendments do not address the specific logistics that would absolutely ensure this does not occur. Take the possibility of segregated bank accounts, for example, for advertising versus administrative costs. The amendments say that you shouldn't do this, that this is bad, but with the legislation as it stands the mechanisms are not in place to ensure that it will not occur.
5 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
You're right. It's a prohibition, and there is no specific reporting requirement between election periods. However, other provisions that are included in part 17 of the act on third parties require that all contributions be reported on when the third party meets the threshold in their first financial report after that and all contributions since the day after the previous general election.
5 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I think the official touched on this. I would highlight the fact that there doesn't seem to be a clear way to distinguish between funds that have been commingled within an organization. I think that's a concerning observation.
The minister was questioned about this as to whether or not there should be a segregated bank account at all points throughout the process, so that only funds that have gone into a separate segregated bank account where that amount can be traced to a Canadian source.... The minister wasn't eager to do that.
I just throw that out as an observation again. Determining where there has been commingling of funds is not very ascertainable with the way things are here, rather than having a tangible way such as segregated bank accounts throughout the process, whereby every dollar can be traced back to Canadian sources.
