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

[Stephanie Kusie]

This again is in regard to third parties and the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation for anti-circumvention provisions regarding foreign contributions.

As historically has been the case, we are trying to further, I genuinely believe, protect Canadians and democracy by making the clauses as watertight as possible. Certainly, as has been indicated by our witnesses several times, the legislation largely points to, “You can't do this. If you do this, that's illegal.”

We believe that CPC-110 takes this further by, for example, in proposed paragraph 358.02(1)(a) making it also legal, “No person or entity shall”...“conceal, or attempt to conceal, the identity of the source of a contribution”.

Again, we are just trying to further close these loopholes relative to the bill that was put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there discussion?

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

Largely, it was hashed out before, and I think it will be covered in new division 0.1 brought in by amendments, so I don't see a need to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ruby, do you have something to say?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

As David said, it's already covered. Partisan advertising is already prohibited and it's already a crime. Sorry, I meant foreign funding and partisan advertising—not just partisan advertising, which is what I think I just said, and my mind is all over the place today—so it just seems to be redundant. It doesn't really seem to be closing anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Monsieur Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I like the spirit of the Conservatives' amendment.

Mr. Morin, I would like to ask a question to help me understand this.

Let's say an organization has an annual operating budget of $2 million and that it receives a $2 million contribution from a foreign corporation. That money received from a foreign corporation or foreign donor won't be used to conduct political or pre-election activities but rather to pay the organization's ordinary operating expenses.

How can we determine whether this foreign donation was used for pre-election or election activities or whether it's just a substitution? The claim can be made that this cash donation wasn't used for pre-election activities but rather to pay rent, a secretary, researchers and so on. The fact remains that this money didn't previously exist.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Boulerice.

I'm just going to make a technical comment on amendment CPC-110. I would note that the new section 358.01 here proposed refers to section 358, which has been deleted by the adoption of amendment LIB-33.

To answer your question, Mr. Boulerice, I should note that the new division 0.1 was created under another Liberal amendment that was adopted yesterday. Broadly speaking, that new division prohibits the use of foreign funds at any time for partisan advertising, election advertising, partisan activities and election surveys. More specifically, it provides as follows:

349.02 No third party shall use funds for a partisan activity, for advertising or for an election survey if the source of the funds is a foreign entity. 349.03 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.

I know that doesn't exactly answer your question, and I won't answer it either, because every case is unique.

As we said earlier, however, third parties may include anyone except a candidate or party.

Canadian businesses probably receive foreign funds every day, from dividends or other sources. If it were perfectly clear that an organization with a very limited budget was suddenly able to incur extraordinary expenses that it would normally be unable to incur, the situation could be investigated by the Chief Electoral Office because it might involve one of the prohibitions I just cited. It all depends on the amounts and circumstances involved.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I see. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I get a sense that people know how they're going to vote, but I'll close off with Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie]

I have a quick question for the officials. Would the bill as it stands apply only to foreign funding, or would it also apply to collusion domestically?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you mean the amendment or the bill?

[Stephanie Kusie]

I mean the bill.

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

What do you mean by that?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Pardon me, I mean the amendment, not the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Does the amendment as written apply to both collusion and foreign funding? Is that what you're asking, Stephanie?

[Stephanie Kusie]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is that your question?

[Stephanie Kusie]

Yes, would the amendment apply only to foreign funding or also to domestic collusion?

[LCdr Jean-François Morin]

Well, it's an interesting question.

In the amendment, the new section 358.01 that was proposed referred to section 358 for which the topic was foreign funding, but that section has been repealed. So of course that provision specifically referred to foreign funding, but in the new section 358.02, for example, paragraph (a) has no specific reference to foreign funding. It just says that it is prohibited to "conceal, or attempt to conceal, the identity of the source of a contribution”, so that would apply domestically as well.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Okay, thank you, Mr. Morin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Can we vote on this, please?

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

We would like a recorded vote, please, Chair.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have LIB-34 as the next amendment to clause 233, but it was consequential and passed.

You withdrew LIB-34? Can we withdraw it after it was passed? Was it passed consequentially?

While you're looking that up, we'll go to CPC-111. There are some ramifications to this amendment, before we introduce it.

[Stephanie Kusie]

Chair, why was LIB-34 withdrawn?