Yes.
Evidence of meeting #126 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 agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #126 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 agreed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
3:40 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yesterday we mentioned that—
3:40 p.m.
NDP
3:40 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes.
3:40 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Mr. Chair, did they indicate that it is covered elsewhere in the bill?
3:40 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
We had a discussion yesterday on that and we mentioned that a third party that would be colluding with the registered party to the extent that it would be bringing services or products to the registered party would likely constitute a non-monetary contribution, so....
3:40 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Okay, but in this case, it's not specifically in regard to a non-monetary contribution. It's in regard to influence through advertising or surveys. That wouldn't be included, then, in terms of.... Those are specific types of influence. That's not in regard to monetary contribution. Would you say this is different from that?
3:40 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Of course it is a bit different. What we were saying basically yesterday was that third parties can of course bring information to the knowledge of parties in order to try to influence the registered party in its policies, and that is fine. That is part of the goal of political parties, to regroup a large segment of the Canadian population in order to represent it.
We were saying that when that collaboration or collusion gets to a point where the third party provides goods or services to the registered party, then it becomes a non-monetary contribution that is prohibited, under some circumstances, under part 18 of the Canada Elections Act.
3:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Okay, that's goods or services, but that doesn't necessarily cover information.
3:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
No.
3:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I wonder then what the government's hesitation would be in providing a more stringent application of an amendment that would also cover information in addition to resources.
October 17th, 2018 / 3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
This amendment adds information to the things that can't be colluded and they want to know what the government's thoughts are.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Don't you want information to pass between third parties?
3:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
Well, not if it's a form of collusion, not if it is information that helps them to influence the election undemocratically.
It's in proposed subsection 351.01(4) in the amendment. It specifically speaks of “information—in order to influence either third party in its partisan activities that it carries out during an election period, its election advertising”, which would be more in terms of resources, or “election surveys that it conducts or causes to be conducted during an election period.”
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Monsieur Morin, just quickly, there are already rules in place within the act to prohibit the circumvention of the spending limits by splitting an organization in two, for example. Is that correct?
3:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Yes, exactly. There is already a prohibition in place to prohibit third parties from colluding to exceed their spending limits, basically.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If two organizations are colluding to share information—colluding might be an awfully strong word in that situation there—we risk criminalizing, for lack of a better word, civil society communications.
3:45 p.m.
LCdr Jean-François Morin
Well, as we know, third parties are everybody but candidates and political parties, so....
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I understand what you want to do, but I think this is a very highly risky thing to do, and I cannot support that.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I think there could be a lot of unforeseen harm. I think we discussed this last time, too. Again, it goes down the path of those who are potential candidates or candidates discussing.... You're not even talking about the election period. You're talking about way beyond that, right? Are you talking pre-writ and prior to that as well?
3:45 p.m.
Calgary Midnapore, CPC
I believe, as we have seen in previous discussions as it exists here, presently, yes, that's correct, but....
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I think that would be going way too far, because communications are often so necessary and third parties provide us such vital important information. We may be getting carried away along the lines of sometimes.... Before becoming a parliamentarian I even thought that lobbying.... It gets such a bad rap. Just the word, “lobbying”, makes it seem like it's some kind of evil way of convincing MPs, but when you become an MP, you realize that there are all sorts of lobbying. There's the Heart and Stroke Foundation trying to inform you of healthy eating habits and information on how to make Canadians healthier and safer.
As Mr. Morin has pointed out, when you're talking about third parties, it means basically everybody. I think this would be really hard to prove, first of all, and then, also, it would really be interfering with people being able to conduct...and learn from organizations that do a whole bunch of research for us.
