Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 17th, 2018

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Actually, no, not in my personal opinion, which is very valuable, of course.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

It is.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Let me have a quick look at the bill.

When we look at the definition of “partisan advertising expenses”, it relates to the idea of promoting or opposing a party, and also a candidate. When we look at the prohibition here, at page 157 of the bill, lines 25 and following, in English, it says:

449.1 (1) No electoral district association of a registered party shall

(a) incur partisan advertising expenses in relation to partisan advertising messages that promote or oppose a registered party or an eligible party and that are transmitted during a pre-election period;

With the words used here, I think it is clear that the prohibition was meant to be on the type of partisan advertising message that would have more of a national impact and would be talking about the party's campaign. What's left out of the prohibition is any mention of local issues or a local candidate, so the prohibition was not meant to be a blanket prohibition on EDAs from incurring—

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

I understand that. That doesn't exist there. If this is accepted, what would the stop circumvention of the limits in 338 EDAs that this bill is trying to put on...? Unless I'm reading it wrong, it doesn't say that those EDA campaigns can only talk about local issues. Each EDA could run the same ad on a national level, on a national issue and promoting a national leader, could it not?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

It says that each EDA can incur partisan advertising expenses for partisan advertising messages that are basically aimed at the distribution in the electoral district.

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

You heard my question, right? If we had a universal limit as to what parties can spend on partisan advertising, does this not represent an increase in that expenditure at a riding level?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The party is also prohibited from trying to circumvent its own limit.

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

If every EDA runs an ad that says “vote Liberal”, and underneath that it has “candidate for riding” 338 times....

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Can they do that?

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

They're thinking about it. It just expands the amount of money being spent with a partisan message. You're saying you'd have to prove coordination.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Exactly. The party cannot try to circumvent its own limit. It would be very suspicious if the same advertisement was published by each and every EDA. Again, the goal of this amendment is to ensure that EDAs will be able to, for example, print a pamphlet and put the party logo or the party's name on it.

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

That would not count towards the limit.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater and then Mr. Graham.

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

Chair, I have a question of clarification, too. Would this catch something or not? I'm thinking of a Facebook ad promoting, for example, an EDA summer BBQ. Would something like that be caught under this, especially when it comes to being solely or substantially within an electoral district? When you're looking at something in a Facebook ad, targeting that specifically within an electoral district becomes a little more challenging. Would something like that be covered?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The publication of information on the Internet has a much broader distribution than a mail-out, for example. It all depends on the circumstances. It's very difficult to answer your question because I don't have the ad in front of me. If the invitation is for a specific event on a specific date in the electoral district it would seem to be restricted enough to the electoral district that it would pass the—

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

There could be a degree of interpretation at the time, depending on specific situations. It could be advertise at your own peril, in the sense that you may or may not get caught.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

The intent needs to be to distribute it within the electoral district. If it can be shown that the intent was to give it a much broader distribution, then it wouldn't be caught by the exception and it would likely count towards the party limit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham, and then we'll go back to Mr. Nater because I think he has more to say.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Morin, if we don't pass this amendment, could, for example, Nathan Cullen put out a flyer in his riding in the pre-writ period with his name and the leader's name and party address on it, or is there a drafting error, because I understand that would prevent that from happening?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

If it is paid out of the EDA funds, the answer is no. Given the definitions that have been given by the act, to “promote or oppose a registered party or eligible party”, just naming the party or showing its logo would be sufficient to—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It would be sufficient to make it banned.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Not to make it banned, but to make it count towards the national limit.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There's the issue. Doing this allows you to have a local flyer about yourself that mentions the party you're supporting in that pre-writ period, which we could not otherwise do without affecting the party's spending amount.