Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 9th, 2017

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

The committee is in charge of its own affairs, but I think it's valuable input. I think it would be worthwhile to have that as part of the considerations moving forward, so I hope to be able to receive that so it can feed into my thoughts and recommendations to the government.

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

That's great.

There is one more quick point I want to make: You listed quite a number of clauses in the report on which you are looking forward to our feedback. I very much appreciate that. I think it's a really good approach for our going forward, to know where the priorities are, because I think there's quite a lot left to get through in that report. There are more answers coming that we've already discussed, and I can't get into more details about that, but I really appreciate the conversation and the fact you came here.

I know that Scott Simms has been getting warmed up, and I want to know if he wants to finish one last minute of his question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Someone else is gracious.

Thank you, David.

I was going to suggest that in smaller areas—and again, I'm not looking for an answer right now—you'll find that the poll supervisor has the power to vouch for individuals. It's bizarre when somebody walks up and says, “I'm sorry. Even though I've known you for 40 years, I can't vouch for you. I don't know you.” That becomes a common thing throughout rural areas.

If someone in that position—supervisor or someone at that level—had the power to vouch multiple times and signed for it and swore to it by whatever legal measures are needed, that would go a long way, especially in rural areas.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Scott. You finished on time.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have another opportunity so we can carry on. I went off on a mini-rant at the end of the last round and you didn't have a chance to respond, so I wanted to be fair, obviously, and give you that opportunity.

To refresh where we were at, in the interim I again looked at the transcript from when you appeared before the Senate. I think this summarizes quite well what I was referring to, and I can then let you respond. It was in response to a question from Senator Frum.

As I think I mentioned earlier, you had said that with regard to foreign money in the Canadian political process, it's very important to know that in Canada we do have very strict financing laws. It was the same point you used earlier when I was asking you questions as well about who can donate to a political party, a third party, or a candidate during a writ period. During a writ period is obviously the key there.

Then in response to that, Minister, Senator Frum put the concern I have here quite succinctly when she said to you:

Minister, would you agree that it is possible for foreign entities to make donations to third-party organizations outside of the writ period; that that money ends up getting used during the writ period; that this is the loophole I'm referring to; and that this is a very serious threat to our political sovereignty?

You then thanked her for her questions and said that from your experience you found it wasn't currently present or that was significant, that it would impact the election. But then you did go on to say, “However, I take your point and I appreciate it. It's something that I will definitely consider.”

Later on in that same meeting, in response to Senator Batters about the same topic, you also indicated the following:

I will continue to work with my staff and colleagues in this place and in the other place to ensure that we put reasonable spending limits for third parties between elections.

So it seemed, on the one hand, as if you were brushing it off, saying that this isn't something that there is any concern about, but then, on the other hand, you were saying that you'll consider it and you think we need to look at putting some reasonable spending limits in place for third parties between elections. I'm trying to get a sense as to which one it is. Do you have concerns, and do you think this needs to be addressed, or not? And if yes or no, why or why not?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you again, Blake, for your question.

Addressing your first question with regard to the possibility of foreign money being used in advertising during an election, as it stands currently, third parties are required to report to Elections Canada all donations they have received in the six months prior to a writ's being announced. This is a mechanism that's in place at the moment. Of course, I am always interested to see if we think this is an issue and is of concern. At this point in time, it's not something we have vast evidence to be concerned about, but I welcome your concerns and any evidence you would have to suggest otherwise.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

In the briefing that you have committed to giving to this committee, was that something that was looked at? Was this something that you were briefed on in that briefing? You said you'll consider it and look at it. Obviously, that would imply that there was some intention to look at it. Now, this briefing, I suppose, could have occurred since those February 7 and February 14 meetings. Was it looked at in those briefings, and were you briefed fully on this and now feel that there's no need, or is this something you'll continue to look at now?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

It was part of the briefings, but from the advice we were given, we do not think it is something that is imminent right now in Canada. That doesn't mean we won't stop considering it, because I think it is important, but it's not of grave concern.

Do you want to add onto that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'll let your respond, but I want to follow up on that quickly.

There certainly seems to be a dispute. There are certainly those out there who would say this is a problem. There are organizations that have—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I would welcome your examples or suggestions that you have of this.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Let me just finish, because there is the possibility that it's actually a problem. You may have information to the contrary, and that's why we're asking for your briefing, obviously. But would you not concede that there is a chance that this could certainly be a problem? If it isn't already a problem, do you not see how it might be a problem in our elections? If a foreign entity could, in fact, give unlimited amounts to a third party prior to an election, that money could then be spent during an election. So do you not see—

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

But there are limits on third-party spending within a writ period itself that apply to all third parties in Canada. I think it's important to look at it within the wider regulatory and legislative framework as well. That being said, I think it's always important for a democracy, for a government, for a country, and for a citizenry to be constantly reflecting and monitoring situations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister. That's it for time.

We'll go on to Mr. Chan.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I really want to express my appreciation for your being here today.

I want to follow up on the line of questioning that my colleague David Graham had started with respect to timelines. You specifically mentioned a May 19 deadline. The committee has received some information that there may be other substantive work that we need to consider as well. I'm following this line of questioning simply because I'm trying to figure out a process for dealing with what might suddenly be a very heavy workload for all of us. I want to understand. Is your deadline of May 19 when you want us to have completed the review of the Chief Electoral Officer's report and to report that back to the House?

That is my first line of questioning. My second piece is with respect to Bill C-33. Of course, we have not yet received that piece of legislation from the House for review. Would it be helpful for us to potentially prereview it on the assumption that it will come to us fairly intact?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Thank you for both of your questions.

I will reiterate that the committee is in charge of and responsible for its own work plan. It would be very helpful for me to have another interim report, because I found the first one very useful in my thinking. Moving forward, it would be particularly useful for the committee to reflect and focus on the recommendations I specifically outlined in my opening remarks. I recognize that there are over 130 recommendations, so that is quite the task. Maybe you won't be able to get to all of them by that date, but if you're able to provide some reflection and guidance and thoughts with regard to some of them, I would be appreciative. You may not get to all of the ones that I mentioned, although all of them would be welcome. I hope to receive as much as you're able to do in due course, because that will help as I move forward.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

With respect to the first interim report, we asked for a response, obviously, from your office or from you regarding our recommendations going back to the House. It would be my assumption that we would probably go down the same line as we work through the rest of the report and report it back. Could you commit to providing us that reply as expeditiously as possible, and certainly before the deadline of May 19? I mean, obviously, it depends on when we, for example, submit our report to the House. I recognize that we have to give you a reasonable amount of time to respond, but, obviously, your comprehensive response to that would be helpful for us in terms of figuring out how to sequence our work. I suspect that at the pace we're going right now, we're not going to get there, and we might need to reconsider how we work as a committee to get as much as possible in front of you. The question I'm really leading to is whether you are anticipating further legislation coming from you, regardless of whether or not this committee reports to you.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

I will endeavour to report back to you as soon as I can. I think this is a priority. I think it would be possible, depending on the recommendations coming out of subsequent reports with regard to the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations. Obviously, this would be something that I would have to bring to cabinet and report back on.

Also, I think there are elements within the Chief Electoral Officer's report that would require legislative changes, and if we're favourable to that, that would be the process we would be looking to pursue.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Okay. I think we're out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have one more round of three minutes for Mr. Christopherson, and that will end the session.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good, thank you, Chair. I appreciate your ensuring our last spot. I will turn my time over to my colleague, Mr. Cullen.

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

Thank you, David.

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, forgive me if I'm a bit confused. Let's circle back.

At committee, whenever a minister pleads the Canadian equivalent of the fifth amendment, we all sort of perk up a little bit and wonder what's going on.

There were two mandates. The first mandate, the previous one, said that your government was committed to electoral reform and to bringing in a new voting system before the next election. The second mandate says, “Not so much. We're going to break that commitment. We're doing something else.”

You were brought into cabinet on the 10th of January. Correct?

Okay.

Cabinet got together later in January, on the 24th and 25th, and you made public your new mandate letter on the 1st of February.

Do I have everything right so far?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

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

Okay. I just want to make sure I have the facts straight.

You can understand why some of us are a bit confused about why you can't just tell us when you received the new mandate letter.

Was there any point when you had an old mandate letter, previously Minister Monsef's directions to keep the promise on electoral reform, and were given a second one that was not yet made public?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

The mandate letter was made public on February 1, which was when the Prime Minister and I announced the new direction in the mandate letter, and that is how things have proceeded—