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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have a question for Mr. Morin.
Have we already achieved this with some of the other amendments we've brought forward?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If we've already done it, we don't need to do it again.
6:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes and no.
6:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
The new division 0.1 of part 17 of the act would prohibit all third parties, including foreign third parties, from using foreign money for the purpose of partisan activities, advertising and election surveys. What the provision that has been carried already does not do is prohibit a foreign third party from incurring some expenses outside of the election and of the pre-election period, but in order to incur these expenses, it would always need to fund these expenses with Canadian money. That's the difference.
We are prohibiting all third parties from using foreign money at all times for partisan activities, advertising and election surveys, but foreign third parties would still be able to incur some of these expenses outside of the election and pre-election period, but they will always need to fund themselves from a Canadian source. They could receive contributions, for example, from a Canadian source, and have some activities outside of the election and pre-election period.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I would like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Bear with me. I'm going to flip around a little bit to try to explain this.
What we're dealing with here is the definition of a third party. We're making a relatively minor change, but I just want to explain it in two ways.
Line 16 is being amended. It currently refers to a third party being a corporation or entity. Proposed subparagraph 394.4(2)(b)(ii) says:
(ii) it was incorporated, formed or otherwise organized outside Canada; and
We're changing it slightly to say:
(ii) it was incorporated, formed or otherwise organized outside Canada, or it was incorporated, formed or otherwise organized in Canada but no person who is responsible for it is a person described in any of subparagraphs (c)(i) to (iii); and
Proposed subparagraphs (c)(i) to (iii) refer to basically being a Canadian, a permanent resident or someone residing in Canada. We discussed this somewhat differently a little earlier on. We were saying that if there's been an organization, a third party, formed within Canada and no one responsible for this organization lives in Canada, is a Canadian, or is a permanent resident, we would like to see that excluded.
We'll do anything we can to strengthen our election laws against foreign entities influencing Canada. I hope I explained it. It deals with two sections, but I think what we're trying to get at is fairly clear. If there's an entity set up solely for the purpose of influencing an election, with no one running it who has a connection to Canada, we'd like to see this banned.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
So, if a guy comes up from New Mexico, sets up an organization, sets his office up, and there are no Canadians involved, you want to make sure that's not allowed.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Unless he resides in Canada, has Canadian citizenship or is a permanent resident. If he's setting up an entity, but is not physically here or physically involved, I think that's clearly an issue of foreign influence.
October 16th, 2018 / 6:25 p.m.
Liberal
6:25 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes.
We discussed a similar motion in the context of proposed part 11.1 earlier, the prohibitions related to voting. The comments I made at the time still stand.
This would extend the regime to some Canadian entities, even if they are not managed or directed by Canadians. These entities still have a legal existence in Canada.
It's a policy decision.
I'm not saying yes or no. I'm just saying that this would also cover this other category of Canadian entities.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Before you go, Mr. Cullen, do you want to ask your question, Mr. Graham?
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I would like to understand why the French version is so different from the English version.
6:30 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
It's simply that in English each paragraph breaks down the elements separately.
An example would be, “(c) If the third party is a group, no person who is responsible for the group” is blah, blah, blah.
In the French version, everything is included in a single paragraph. It's just a matter of legislative drafting. There is no difference between the two in terms of content.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm wondering about the scenario that we have, and I may understand the amendment wrong.
We have an established business or non-profit in Canada. It does work in Canada, but the director or owner is a non-resident. Under this provision, I would imagine that they would be banned from participating.
