Committee Transcript 2016-Aug-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Committee Transcript 2016-Aug-30 (PDF)

G068 - Tue 30 Aug 2016 / Mar 30 aoû 2016

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES GOUVERNEMENTALES

Tuesday 30 August 2016 Mardi 30 août 2016

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

The committee met at 0903 in room 151.

Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne le financement électoral

Consideration of the following bill:

Bill 201, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act and the Taxation Act, 2007 / Projet de loi 201, Loi visant à modifier la Loi sur le financement des élections et la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Good morning, everyone: members of the committee, member of legislative counsel, Hansard, and of course translation; we have there. Madam Clerk, good morning, everyone. It’s great to see you again.

I’ll call the Standing Committee on General Government to order. Today, we’re going to continue, as per the order of the House, clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 201, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act and the Taxation Act, 2007.

Yesterday, we had made progress through the proposed amendments up to section 46, which would be PC motion number 75 in your packages. Is everyone prepared to move forward? Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong: Chair, I move that subsection 46—

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Sorry.

Mr. Han Dong: I thought you called it.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Oh, okay. No, I’m just saying, is everyone prepared to get going? Okay, unless you tell me otherwise. Thank you very much. We’re just ensuring proper procedure here.

At this time, we’re going to deal with PC motion number 75 in section 46, which is an amendment to subsections 46(1) to (6) and (9), section 40 of the Election Finances Act. Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong: Chair, I move that subsections 46(1) to (6) and (9) of the bill be struck out.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on the motion? Ms. Malhi.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: I recommend voting against this motion because removing references to nomination contestants from the act is inconsistent with the government’s commitment to strengthen rules around election financing and to level the playing field for all political actors. Nomination contestants should be subject to the same kinds of rules as other political actors in our democratic process.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Ms. Fife—oh, sorry. We’ll let her finish.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: We believe that nomination contestants should be regulated in the same way as other political actors, and nomination contestants can ultimately become members of the Legislative Assembly and cabinet. Therefore, the same principles regarding access to funding, transparency and creating an even playing field should apply.

Regulating nomination contestants will help ensure that their activities are guided by a clear set of rules at every step of the electoral process, starting with the nomination process. Regarding nominations, the Chief Electoral Officer said, “the greater transparency, the better for all Ontarians.”

Regulating nomination contestants will help ensure that their activities are guided by a clear set of rules at every step of the electoral process, starting with the nomination process. One of the goals of Bill 201 is to even the playing field by reducing the role of money in politics. Bill 201 seeks to create an even playing field by bringing nominations into the purview of the Election Finances Act.

Over 20 PC amendments are focused on removing nomination races from this bill. These amendments remove spending limits, donation limits, reporting requirements or limits as to where the funds come from. Due to the requirement of the nomination contestants to give surplus funds, as in section 7 of the bill, the amendments have the effect of creating a loophole to allow parties and their entities to be funded by unreported corporate and union donations without any limits.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: We would recommend supporting this motion. The intention, when the PCs brought this forward—essentially, this removes the requirement that a nomination contestant would have to appoint an auditor. While we haven’t agreed with most of the amendments that the PCs have brought forward with regard to nomination races, we would listen to the electoral officer on this particular amendment. Obviously, we feel this would be unnecessarily onerous on nomination races, which, for the most part, raise very limited funds.

The Chief Electoral Officer made similar comments on this matter when he came to this committee and he said that the proposed donation limits and the disclosure requirements would act as a safeguard.

We want people to enter into—we want people to seek office. We want people to get involved in the electoral process. If they know they have to get an auditor to audit their nomination process, I really feel that this is a barrier to the political process.

We New Democrats will be supporting amendment 75.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on PC motion 75? There being none, I shall call for the vote.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Can I have a recorded vote?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There is a request for a recorded vote, which will be entertained.

Ayes

Fife.

Nays

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare PC motion number 75 defeated.

Hence, there are no amendments to section 46. Is there any discussion on section 46 in its entirety? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 46 carry? I declare section 46 carried.

Section 48: Any discussion on section 48?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Forty-seven.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Sorry, 47. Thank you, Vice-Chair.

No discussion on section 47? I shall call for the vote. Those in favour of section 47? I declare section 47 carried.

We shall move to section 48. Any discussion on section 48? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Those in favour of section 48? Carried. I declare section 48 carried.

We shall move to section 49. There is an amendment, PC motion number 76, which is an amendment to section 49, subsection 41.1(3) of the Election Finances Act. Is there anyone that—Mr. Dong.

0910

Mr. Han Dong: I move that subsection 41.1(3) of the Election Finances Act, as set out in section 49 of the bill, be struck out.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Ms. Malhi.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Just a second. I recommend—sorry, just give me one second.

I recommend voting against this motion because the proposed motion requires individuals to disclose a significant amount of personal information, including the name of their employer, and may result in these individuals forgoing their participation as volunteers in election campaigns. It would introduce a significant record-keeping burden on registered political parties, registered candidates and registered constituency associations.

The goal of the bill is to ensure a fair and transparent electoral process that gives voice to all Ontarians. The proposed motion would introduce provisions that would introduce huge record-keeping burdens on political actors. They may have to keep records on hundreds or even thousands of volunteers.

In addition, the provisions have the potential to curtail participation in the democratic process. While we want to ensure—

Interjection.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Oops.

One of the goals of Bill 201 is to even the playing field by reducing the role of money in politics. Bill 201 seeks to create the even playing field by bringing nominations into the purview of the Election Finances Act.

Over 20 PC amendments are focussed on removing nomination races from this bill. These amendments remove spending limits, donation limits, reporting requirements or limits as to where the funds can come from. Due to the requirement of nomination contestants to give surplus funds, as in section 7 of the bill, the amendments have the effect of creating a loophole to allow parties and their entities to be funded by unreported corporate and union donations without any limits.

Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on PC motion number 76? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Those in favour of PC motion 76? Those opposed to PC motion 76? I declare PC motion number 76 defeated.

Therefore, there are no amendments to section 49. Is there any discussion on section 49? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 49 carry? Section 49 is carried.

We shall move to section 50. We have PC motion number 77, which is proposing a new subsection 50(1.1), new subsection 42(3.2) of the Election Finances Act. Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong: I move that section 50 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“(1.1) Section 42 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:

“‘Record of volunteers

“‘(3.2) A registered political party, registered candidate or registered constituency association that receives any service that does not come within the definition of “contribution” during the campaign period shall,

“‘(a) require that the person who performed the service sign a form that,

“‘(i) lists the person’s name, contact information and occupation and the name of the person’s employer, if any, and

“‘(ii) confirms that the person has not received compensation for performing the service, whether from the party, candidate, constituency association or any other person or entity; and

“‘(b) keep a copy of all forms required by clause (a) for examination by the Chief Electoral Officer.’”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Mr. Berardinetti.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I recommend voting against this motion because the proposed motion requires individuals to disclose a significant amount of personal information, including the name of their employer, and may result in these individuals forgoing their participation as volunteers in election campaigns. Furthermore, it would introduce a significant record-keeping burden on registered political parties, registered candidates and registered constituency associations.

The proposed motion requires the registered political party, registered candidate or registered constituency association receiving a service that does not qualify as a contribution to record the personal information of the volunteer, including their name, residence, occupation, and the address of the volunteer’s place of employment, and to confirm that the volunteer received no compensation for the service. For practical purposes, this would introduce a significant record-keeping burden on registered political parties, registered candidates and registered constituency associations.

In addition, it may raise privacy concerns for individual volunteers who have not previously been required to provide personal information, particularly about their occupations.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Any discussion on PC motion 77? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: We will not be supporting this motion. We should be encouraging volunteers, not discouraging them, and this simply creates more red tape for volunteers.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? There being none, I shall call for the vote on PC motion number 77. Those in favour of PC motion 77? Those opposed? I declare PC motion 77 defeated.

There are no amendments to section 50. Any discussion on section 50 in its entirety? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 50 carry? I declare section 50 carried.

We shall move to section 51. There are no amendments. Any discussion on section 51? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 51 carry? I declare section 51 carried.

We shall move to section 52. There are no amendments. Is there any discussion on section 52? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 52 carry? Carried.

We shall move to section 53. There was an amendment.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): We’re going to just backtrack for a second. One of the first motions that we had dealt with yesterday morning was government motion 78, which was a money motion which was moved by Minister McGarry yesterday and passed by the committee. Unfortunately, on my sheet it says it’s in section 53, but it is in fact in section 52. So with the committee’s permission, I will go back to section 52. That amendment is in section 52, and we can re-debate that particular section. Is that fair enough? Thank you very much.

Okay, so we’re going back to section 52. There is one amendment. Is there any discussion on section 52 with that one amendment? There being none, I shall call for the vote on section 52, as amended. Shall section 52, as amended, carry? I declare section 52, as amended, carried. Thank you all very much, and thank you to legislative counsel and the Clerk for the clarification.

We shall move to section 53. There are no amendments to section 53. Is there any discussion on section 53? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 53 carry? I declare section 53 carried.

We shall move to section 54. There are no amendments proposed. Any discussion on section 54?

Mr. Han Dong: There are amendments.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): On section 54? I don’t think—no. We’ll deal with those. Those are proposing new sections. It’s not part of the actual section 54; these are new sections that need to be dealt with on an individual basis.

There are no amendments to section 54 in its entirety. Any discussion? There being none, I shall call for the vote. Shall section 54 carry? I declare section 54 carried.

We shall move to NDP motion number 79, which is proposing a new section, 54.1, subsection 1(1) of the Government Advertising Act, 2004. However, there are 11 proposed new sections of section 54. The rules of clause-by-clause consideration, traditionally, are that—

Ms. Catherine Fife: Can you please speak up? I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Sorry. Okay.

The traditional rules of clause-by-clause when we deal with new sections are that we deal with them individually. But if the committee agrees, we can deal with them and debate them all at the same time, if that’s satisfactory. Okay? Okay.

Ms. Fife, if you could move all 11 of them.

0920

Ms. Catherine Fife: So you want me to read through amendment 79, all five pages. Do I have to read it into the record?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): That would make sense, because it is one motion, but it deals with five subsections.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Okay, let’s go.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): So, enjoy and we’ll look forward to hearing it.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Have a coffee.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Call us when you’re done.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following sections:

“Government Advertising Act, 2004

“54.1(1) The definition of ‘item’ in subsection 1(1) of the Government Advertising Act, 2004, is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘“item” means a reviewable advertisement, reviewable printed matter or a reviewable message, as the case may be; (“document”)’

“(2) The definition of ‘prescribed’ in subsection 1(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘“prescribed” means prescribed by a regulation made under this act;’

“(3) The definition of ‘regulations’ and the definition of ‘standards’ in subsection 1(1) of the act are repealed.

“54.2 Section 1.1 of the act is repealed.

“54.3 Subsection 2(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Submission for review

“‘(2) The head of the government office shall give a copy of the advertisement to the Office of the Auditor General for review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(3) The government office shall not publish, display or broadcast the advertisement before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

“‘(4) The government office shall not publish, display or broadcast the advertisement if the head of the office receives notice that, in the Auditor General’s opinion, the advertisement does not meet the standards required by this act.’

“54.4 Subsection 3(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Submission for review

“‘(2) The head of the government office shall give a copy of the printed matter to the Office of the Auditor General for review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(3) The government office shall not distribute the printed matter before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

“‘(4) The government office shall not distribute the printed matter if the head of the office receives notice that, in the Auditor General’s opinion, it does not meet the standards required by this act.’

“54.5 Subsection 4(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Submission for review

“‘(2) The head of the government office shall give a copy of the message to the Office of the Auditor General for review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(3) The government office shall not convey the message before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

“‘(4) The government office shall not convey the message if the head of the office receives notice that, in the Auditor General’s opinion, the message does not meet the standards required by this act.’

“54.6 Section 4.1 of the act is repealed.

“54.7 Subsection 5(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Review by the Auditor General

“‘(1) When an item is given to the Office of the Auditor General for review, the Auditor General shall review it to determine whether, in his or her opinion, it meets the standards required by this act.’

“54.8 Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the act are repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Required standards

“‘6(1) The following are the standards that an item is required to meet:

“‘1. It must be a reasonable means of achieving one or more of the following purposes:

“‘i. To inform the public of current or proposed government policies, programs or services available to them.

“‘ii. To inform the public of their rights and responsibilities under the law.

“‘iii. To encourage or discourage specific social behaviour, in the public interest.

“‘iv. To promote Ontario or any part of Ontario as a good place to live, work, invest, study or visit or to promote any economic activity or sector of Ontario’s economy.

“‘2. It must include a statement that the item is paid for by the government of Ontario.

“‘3. It must not include the name, voice or image of a member of the executive council or a member of the assembly.

“‘4. It must not be partisan.

“‘5. It must not be a primary objective of the item to foster a positive impression of the governing party or a negative impression of a person or entity who is critical of the government.

“‘6. It must meet such additional standards as may be prescribed.

“‘Advertising outside Ontario

“‘(2) Paragraph 3 of subsection (1) does not apply with respect to an item for which the primary target audience is located outside of Ontario.

“‘Partisan advertising

“‘(3) An item is partisan if, in the opinion of the Auditor General, a primary objective of the item is to promote the partisan political interests of the governing party.

“‘Same

“‘(4) The Auditor General shall consider such factors as may be prescribed, and may consider such additional factors as he or she considers appropriate, in deciding whether a primary objective of an item is to promote the partisan political interests of the governing party.

“‘Notice of results of review

“‘7(1) The Office of the Auditor General shall notify the head of the government office of the results of the review within the prescribed number of days after receiving an item for review.

“‘Deemed notice

“‘(2) If the notice is not given within that period, the head shall be deemed to have received notice that the item meets the standards required by this act.

“‘Submission of revised version

“‘8(1) If the head of a government office is notified that an item does not meet the standards required by this act and if the government office proposes to use a revised version of it, the head shall give the revised version to the Office of the Auditor General for a further review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(2) The government office shall not use the revised version before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

“‘(3) The government office shall not use the revised version if the head of the office receives notice that, in the Auditor General’s opinion, the revised version does not meet the standards required by this act.

“‘Review of revised version

“‘(4) Sections 5 and 6 apply with respect to the review.

“‘Notice of results of review, revised version

“‘(5) The Office of the Auditor General shall notify the head of the results of the further review within the prescribed number of days after receiving the revised review.

“‘Deemed notice

“‘(6) If the notice is not given within that period, the head shall be deemed to have received notice that the revised version meets the standards required by this act.’

“54.9 Subsection 9(2) of the act is amended by striking out ‘4.1’.

“54.10 Section 10 of the act is amended by striking out ‘4.1’.

“54.11(1) Clauses 12(1)(a.1), (a.2) and (a.3) of the act are repealed.

“(2) Clause 12(1)(c) of the act is amended by striking out ‘paragraph 3’ and substituting ‘paragraph 6’.

“(3) Clauses 12(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:

“‘(d) prescribing additional factors for the purposes of subsection 6(4);

“‘(e) prescribing a number of days for the purposes of subsection 7(1) and for the purposes of subsection 8(5).’

“(4) Subsection 12(2) of the act is repealed.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Could you repeat that?

Laughter.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. I’m not sure if legislative counsel or anyone—I just noticed one issue: just that second-last page, number 5. It’s indicated in writing here, “after receiving the revised version.” I believe you had indicated “after receiving the revised review.” I believe it’s “version” that perhaps you had wanted to say.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Okay, thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): You’re welcome. That’s for clarification. Anything else? I thought it went very well. Thank you.

Further discussion on NDP motion number 79? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: We have been very consistent that, in order to instill some confidence again in the electoral financing system in the province of Ontario, we need to ensure that the government does not have the advantage or the upper hand as elections play themselves out.

Yesterday, the government side of the House refused to support a 90-day blackout period prior to the election. This amendment essentially is a response to the Auditor General’s presentation to this committee where you’ll remember that she described the process that she is currently part of, in determining whether or not a government advertisement is partisan or non-partisan, as essentially being “a joke.” Those were her words. She said that her office plays no meaningful part in this process because her only recourse is to rule whether or not an advertisement is compliant with the revised Government Advertising Act or non-compliant, and the Government Advertising Act has been greatly diminished.

0930

Now, I will give the Liberal government full credit for bringing in a strong, principled piece of legislation in 2004 which was, quite honestly, cutting-edge in this country, that would limit partisan advertising on behalf of any government. In the Budget Measures Act of 2015, the Government Advertising Act was greatly diminished. I will read directly from the Auditor General’s presentation. She said, “However, the” Government Advertising Act’s “effectiveness was largely eliminated when the government included amendments to the” Government Advertising Act “in last year’s Budget Measures Act.” This would have been 2015.

The first point that she makes is, “The standards that required government ads to serve a legitimate purpose by providing useful information to the public and not inappropriately praising the governing party or criticizing those who oppose the government were removed.

“As well, a very narrow and limited definition of what constitutes partisan advertising was introduced. The amendments repealed two critical subsections”—which we’ve included back in through this amendment. Those are subsections 6(3) and 6(4) in the previous version of the GAA. “These subsections allowed the Auditor General discretion in considering additional factors beyond the GAA’s specific standards to assess whether a primary objective of a government ad was to promote the partisan interests of the governing party.”

She gives an example: “In the earlier version of the GAA, we could look at the ad and ask ourselves some reasonable questions such as: Is the message fair, balanced and objectively presented? Are the factual and numerical data accurate and supportable? Is the tone overly self-congratulatory? Is the timing of the ad likely to net significant political gains for the government?”

Her main point is that her discretion with regard to these very important questions—I mean, when I hear, “Is the message fair and balanced? Is it factual and numerical,” for me, “If it’s factually and numerically accurate” means, is it the truth? That’s what I read when I read this statement: Is it an honest advertisement? Is it telling the people of the province the truth about what’s happening at Queen’s Park? The people of the province are paying for those ads, so it’s important to be honest with them.

She goes on to say, “This discretion to consider these questions has effectively been removed. In its place is now a very narrow definition of what constitutes partisan advertising.” It may be of interest to the members of the government to hear that “the Auditor General can now only deem a government advertisement as partisan if it includes the name, voice or image of a member of the executive council or a member of the assembly”—so none of our pictures are supposed to be in ads; that’s fine—“or it includes the name or logo of a recognized party in the assembly; or it directly identifies and criticizes a recognized party or member of the assembly; or it includes, to a significant degree, a colour associated with the governing party.” That’s it.

When the Auditor General came here, she specifically came to this committee because of the money that was being invested in advertising: the money that belongs to the people of this province, the money that is being spent—and I’ll give examples later after the debate—to basically congratulate the government on doing a good job. As I said yesterday, when you’re sitting in an emergency room, and you’ve been there for five or six hours, and an advertisement comes on and says that wait times have been reduced by half or reduced by a third, and you have another three or four hours in front of you in that emergency room, it adds insult to injury. It should not be allowed. If the government is serious about reforming election finances, then government advertising is a key piece of the puzzle.

I’ll be interested to hear some of the comments by the government side. I hope I don’t get the regular piece, the regular lines, though. I really don’t. I mean, we have to have this debate here. It is first reading. There’s an opportunity for us to make some substantive changes, and that’s why this amendment is before you. We can right this wrong right here in this committee, and we can do it today at first reading. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much. Further discussion? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Before I get to my comments, I just want to clarify something. The member, Ms. Fife, said that what we had in the act in 2004 was cutting-edge in this country. Well, I just want to remind her that it’s cutting-edge today because no other province in this country has anything close to what we have. I just wanted to put that in the record.

Chair, I will recommend voting against this motion, for the reason that it’s overturning the amendments made to this act in 2015, with the exception of retaining digital advertising in the scope. It does not help even the playing field because government advertisement, by law, is not partisan.

While the government has put forward motions related to the Government Advertising Act, the changes proposed in this motion have been advanced to eliminate any perception that government advertising may be able to influence a campaign, which is in keeping with the intent of the bill.

As I said a minute ago, Ontario is still the first and only jurisdiction in Canada to have legislation that bans government-paid partisan advertising in newspapers, magazines, billboards, radio and television. We passed this historic legislation because we are against the government using taxpayer dollars for partisan advertising. That was our position in 2004, and that’s our position today. Ontario needs government advertising that is appropriate, reasonable and effective because the public has a right to know how tax dollars are being spent and when the government is bringing forward policy changes like children’s vaccines, tax changes and transit programs.

The PCs and NDP have both spoken about the need for further limits on government advertising in the lead-up to a regularly scheduled general election. Government motion number 80 accomplishes that.

Ontario is already a leader when it comes to oversight on government advertising. We are the only province that requires the Auditor General’s approval of ads not only once but twice. Ads are not allowed to serve partisan political purposes. Ontario already limits government advertising during the elections. We are proposing to extend these limits to 60 days prior to a scheduled general election, based on the feedback we heard during the general government committee process.

What we do not want to do is to remove the clarity the Government Advertising Act provides in making decisions in advertising. What we also do not want to do is limit the ability of independent crown agencies to advertise on important issues across the province just because there’s a by-election in one riding in the province, potentially not even in the same media market.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much. Further discussion? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I guess that we have a different definition of “cutting-edge,” and quite honestly, the government has a serious credibility issue on this piece.

The Auditor General is an independent officer of the Legislature. She does not look at this legislation through a partisan lens. Quite honestly, when she comes to this committee and basically says that her powers to actually protect the taxpayers and the citizens of this province from overspending on partisan advertising—that should raise a serious red flag for government members.

I think that it’s worth noting how much money has been spent on government advertising, especially within the context of the limitations that have been put on third parties and political parties. That’s the context here. Bill 201 puts some very strict restrictions on third-party advertising, which has our approval. It also places some strict advertising limits on political parties, but there are no limits on government advertising whatsoever.

0940

“Last fiscal year”—this is from the same delegation—“from April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016, the government spent more than $40 million running more than 1,200 advertisements, with the top 10 advertising campaigns amounting to a total of more than $30 million” in the following year.

“As for political parties, under the proposed legislation, they would be limited to spending $1 million.”

We talk here at this committee about levelling the playing field. If you’re not going to limit the government’s ability to spend on partisan advertising as we limit the other political actors, as we’ve heard today and all day yesterday, then you are creating an unfair advantage that the government has. And we heard from delegations. We heard from people in London, in Kingston, in Ottawa about the government’s unfair advantage.

This process was set up to be collaborative. We were told from the very beginning that we were going to take the voices of Ontarians and bring those voices to this process and be respectful of those voices, and yet here we are.

It is also worth noting, and the Auditor General pointed this out, that in May 2016, so just this past spring, “the government of Canada updated its communication policy so that federal government advertising cannot take place in the 90 days before a fixed general election date.” So Justin Trudeau has imposed this 90-day blackout period, the 90-day blackout period that the Ontario Liberal Party voted against—our NDP amendment yesterday.

“In Ontario, no similar rule exists, and the changes the government made to the Government Advertising Act in 2015 have effectively removed the safeguards, a key one being the Auditor General’s discretion.”

The question is, what is this government hiding? Why are they not being open and transparent? We heard from this Premier during her original speech from the throne that she was going to do politics differently, that she was going to rule from the activist centre that was going to be respectful of all voices. We heard that this government was going to be open and transparent. And yet we have as an opportunity right here at first reading of Bill 201 the ability to reinvigorate and really restore some trust in the Government Advertising Act and in the Election Finances Statute Law Amendment Act.

All I’m hearing is stonewalling. It’s no wonder that the PCs walked out, because this process has not been an honest process. If you are not willing to even consider strengthening a trust issue like government advertising around election financing, then we are really stuck going nowhere. All we have today is a press release from the Attorney General saying things are going to change, and that’s incredibly disappointing. It’s not just disappointing for the people who travelled this summer and were part of this process, but it’s disappointing for the Ontarians who actually came and presented and raised their voices.

I’m glad that Mr. Rinaldi raised the issue of the by-election, because there is a by-election going on in Scarborough. The election will happen this Thursday, and the airwaves are all Ontario Liberal ads. I just heard one yesterday advertising the fact that the federal government is going to modernize the CPP. Why are Ontarians paying for that ad? Why is it on the airwaves every hour or every hour and a half? That’s a good question to ask. It’s a good question to ask of the government. It would be a good question to ask of the Auditor General, but the act that you changed in 2015, through the Budget Measures Act, does not give her the power to actually use her discretion in that matter. But in the past, she has.

I’m going to read again from her presentation. She said that she “exercised ... discretion regarding government advertising during the by-elections in 2014 for the ridings of Thornhill and Niagara. The government already had our approval for four TV spots about tuition rebates and one TV spot on cancer screening. We became concerned, however, when we received two additional TV ads for approval.

“Individually, these ads met the standards of the GAA. However, in the context of the upcoming by-elections, I was concerned that the sheer volume of the ads could have given the governing party a political advantage. We therefore chose to make our approval for these two campaigns conditional on their starting to run the day after the by-elections.”

She said she no longer has this discretion.

When the government members say that the Government Advertising Act of 2015 is cutting-edge, it simply is not. It was, and I’ll give credit to the former Dalton McGuinty government, when he brought it in in 2004. But there is a serious credibility issue when we have the ability to rectify a wrong which is well documented, not just by the auditor but by regular Ontarians, regular citizens who came to this committee throughout the summer and asked for serious changes to be made.

When you look at the $40 million that the government spent in one year on government ads, and then the limitations that are now on political parties and the limitations that are on third parties, there is no denying that this gives the government an unfair advantage in any election—and, it should be noted, any government. That’s what we should be planning for. We should be planning to prevent the abuse of power of government advertising in any future government. We have that ability to do that right here today.

I’d like to hear from the government why they are so resistant to reviewing the Government Advertising Act and giving the Auditor General the powers that she needs to do her job.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you. Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Just very quickly, Chair, I certainly understand the passion the member has. But just for context, we keep on referring to the announcement that we heard yesterday from Minister Naqvi that “threw everything under the bus.” Well, that’s not what I heard last night from some of my constituents and some of my media. The reality is, just as a heads-up, that we hear we need to go further and level the playing field. So we’re not changing the process. We’re just saying, as we move to second reading, that the opposition has options to bring further amendments in, which I think we all believe is a good thing.

We talk about advertising. Just for the record, the most spent on advertising topics last year—there were three. One was spending money advertising Foodland Ontario, which promotes locally grown Ontario produce. I think we want to support our agricultural industry. The others were on sexual violence—frankly, not only did it benefit Ontarians but it was recognized, I believe, in large part, outside this country—and on consumer protection, when we talk about people not being fooled by the phony hot water salesman. I believe those are all things that benefited Ontarians in one way or another.

We do have proposed changes to the Government Advertising Act. Motion 80 addresses some of that. So I believe that we’re in a good place to move forward, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: To Mr. Rinaldi’s point of the heads-up and his description of the process, what happened yesterday was really unprecedented. It really was. Reviewing why we got here, the government ministers were found to be having high-priced, stakeholder-driven fundraising events that prompted a confidence issue and a trust issue, and then this committee was set up.

The Premier says she wrote—self-described—the first edition of Bill 201. There was no banning of cash-for-access in that first edition. She did not include it, even though she was at her kitchen table and even though she said, “I wrote this. I gave this some thought.” There was no banning of cash-for-access in that first edition of Bill 201, and there were no substantive amendments included by the Liberal Party in this amendment process.

0950

But there was a bombshell yesterday, promising wholesale change. While we’re interested in what that announcement was—of course we are—right now we only have a press release. We have no details.

But do you know who would have wanted to know about this? The people of the province, the people who came out as delegations in London, Ottawa, Kingston and Kitchener-Waterloo. They would have wanted to weigh in on this. Riding associations would have wanted to weigh in on this.

Unless the government is going to give us some assurance that we’re going to take this bill back out for second reading and go around the province again—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: We said that.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, you say a lot of things; you do. You said that you were serious about banning cash-for-access, but it wasn’t in the first edition of the bill and it wasn’t in any of the amendments.

I just want to go back to the advertising piece, because please remember, this is a direct ask from the Auditor General, who presented research to us. She presented evidence to this committee and was very clear: There are currently examples right now on the airwaves, that Ontarians are paying for, which she would have found in violation of the 2004 version of the Government Advertising Act.

Those examples, of course, are on the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan:

“—Part of campaign’s timing overlapped with the Ontario Liberal Party TV advertisement featuring the Premier speaking about ensuring that” Ontarians “have an adequate pension.” These are from her notes, just for the record.

“—Part of campaign’s timing overlapped with the federal election campaign, which included public disagreements between the Premier and the Conservative Prime Minister over this issue.” We later found out that during that campaign, the Ontario Liberal government spent $600,000. They accelerated the spending during that election. If the NDP or the Progressive Conservative Party did that, you would be up in arms. You would be, and you would be right. You would be very upset with us, and you would have good reason for that.

“—TV ads left the impression that the ORPP will close the retirement savings gap rather than just help shrink it.” All of us want that person to get over that bridge, right? Everybody knows these commercials. If you’re in Scarborough, you can still see some of them.

“—After ORPP was cancelled, government starting advertising about changes to the CPP, which is outside of its jurisdiction, still before Parliament for approval and not effective until 2019.” Are these ads really going to run until 2019? “The ads appeared to have the objective of fostering a positive impression of the government.”

Climate change was another example listed by the Auditor General:

“—One TV advertisement depicted animals that an announcer addressed as ‘fellow Ontarians’ and who responded ‘enthusiastically’ when told about the actions the government is taking on the environment.” It’s like some bad Sesame Street version.

“—Digital ads about cap-and-trade conveyed the sense that the program was already in place and left the impression that industry would be financing the program,” which is completely false. It’s completely false. Also, when these ads aired, we hadn’t even seen the act. Parts of it had been leaked, but we hadn’t seen it.

“—Two TV spots on climate change provided viewers with no useful information and appeared designed to create apprehension about the effects of climate change so viewers would support the government’s action plan.” This is manipulative. It’s manipulative government advertising that is playing on the emotions of Ontarians, and they are paying for it.

The final one is the investments in infrastructure that the Auditor General listed. These were the TV advertisements that were “focused on the government’s nearly $160-billion investment in infrastructure. As this investment will occur over the next 12 years, there could be at least three provincial elections”—God willing—“that could alter these plans, as well as a number of other unanticipated economic developments.”

Her final thing was:

“—The government indicated in its background information about the campaign that less than 50% of Ontarians have any familiarity with these plans. This led us to believe that the purpose of this campaign was to ensure the government is receiving credit.”

For us, this needs to be fixed. That’s why we brought this amendment forward. For people to say that the Government Advertising Act, as it is written, has some integrity is not true, and we do have a responsibility, I believe, as a committee, to draw attention to this.

There should be a 90-day ban before the election, at the very least. The act needs to be reinstated to its 2004 version. While I know the government is not going to support this, these points need to be made, and they need to be part of the public discourse on what’s happening in this province, because it all comes back to confidence and trust in our democracy. For the government to have the advantage going forward for the 2018 election, where you can outspend 40 to 1, clearly is the strongest signal to us that this is not a serious process with any credibility.

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

1000

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare NDP motion 79, proposing new section 54.10, defeated.

We shall move to NDP motion 79, proposing new section 54.11.

Ayes

Fife.

Nays

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare NDP motion 79, proposing new section 54.11, defeated. Thank you, all.

We’ll move to government motion number 80, which is a proposal for new section 54.1, subsection 8(3) of the Government Advertising Act, 2004.

Who would be reading that in? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“Government Advertising Act, 2004

“54.1 Subsection 8(3) of the Government Advertising Act, 2004 is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘On use during election periods

“‘(3) Despite notice or deemed notice that an item meets the standards, a government office shall not publish, display, broadcast, distribute or convey the item, unless permitted under subsection (4), during the following periods:

“‘1. The period begins on the day of the issue of a writ under the Election Act for a general election and ending on polling day, in the case of any general election.

“‘2. The additional period of 60 consecutive days ending on the day of the issue of a writ under the Election Act, in the case of a general election held in accordance with subsection 9(2) of the Election Act.’”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you very much. For clarification, under number 1, “the period begins” is what I believe you had indicated, but is it possible you would like to say “the period beginning” on the day of the issue of a writ?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Thank you. Further discussion on government motion 80? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Sure, Chair. Obviously, I would recommend voting for this motion. Governments have ongoing obligations to communicate with citizens on a range of issues, including public health warnings; emergency preparedness; access to identification documents, i.e., health cards, birth certificates etc.; and public education on civic responsibility, i.e. submitting taxes etc.

It will extend the existing restriction on government advertising in the GAA for a period of 60 days prior to the drop of the writ for a scheduled election. Although the Government Advertising Act already requires all government advertising to be non-partisan, it is important to avoid even a perception that the government’s advertising might be able to influence an election campaign. That’s why we want to extend the time period during which government advertising will be restricted to a very narrow set of subjects, like advertising for flu shots.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I guess the question is, why 60 days and not 90 days? The federal government, the federal Liberal government, has brought in 90 days. We brought in an amendment to make a 90-day blackout period. Except for that, and except for the fact that this amendment does not address by-elections, which is something that we have as part of our going-forward direction at second reading—I mean, why 60 days and not 90 days? I would really like to know why.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: So nobody knows why? I mean, this number had to come from someplace. Why 60 days and not 90 days? We modelled our amendment on Manitoba, which has been very successful at controlling partisan advertising prior to an election and, of course, during an election, with the exception of the listed issues, like health and safety, or economic in this one. I want to know: Why, for Kathleen Wynne, is it 60 days, and for Justin Trudeau, 90 days?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: We believe Saskatchewan has 60 days, but having said that, we’re talking 60 days pre-writ, and obviously there’s a just-under-30-days writ period, so that’s pretty close to 90 days.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s actually 30 days short of 90 days.

Anyway, we want a blackout period. Of course, we want a 90-day blackout period. We are going to support 60 days, but we’re going to try to address the blackout period for by-elections as well, because as I indicated, the Scarborough by-election is ongoing right now, and the government ads are all over the radio, all over the TV, all over online. I saw one this morning online. You have to admit that it gives the government an advantage.

Flip-flopping on sex ed also gives the government an advantage, I guess, but that’s another story.

However, there’s no good reason. For me, this is just game-playing. There’s no good reason not to have 90 days. If you can’t give me a good reason, then it’s just because we want 90 days and you guys don’t want to give us 90 days. I think that a three-month blackout period of time is advisable, and that’s what we’ll continue to fight for.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? There being none, I shall call for the vote on government motion number 80.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There is a request for a recorded vote, which will be entertained.

Ayes

Berardinetti, Dong, Fife, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Those opposed? I declare government motion number 80 carried.

Members of the committee, you’ll notice motion number 81 is not between 80 and 82, the reason being that it was misnumbered. It deals with section 55, which is after 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89—which one is it, then? It’s 96. So we’ll have to go to 96 to come back to 81. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: So you want to go to 96?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): No, no, we’re just going to skip number—well, we’re going to go to 82. How’s that?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Perfect.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Okay. Number 82 is PC motion 82, which is proposing a new section 54.1, section 1.1, Government Advertising Act, 2004. Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“Government Advertising Act, 2004

“54.1 Section 1.1 of the Government Advertising Act, 2004 is repealed.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: You will note that we are, of course, very supportive of this PC motion, because I think it seeks to strengthen the Auditor General’s discretion, as we debated during amendment 79.

The Toronto Star has said, “What’s missing” in Bill 201 “is a move to restore the ... Auditor General’s power to veto any government ad deemed partisan in nature.” That was an editorial from the Toronto Star. The media recognizes that the government has this advantage.

We will be supporting PC motion 82, which would alter the Government Advertising Act, 2004, as repealed.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Obviously, I recommend voting against this motion for the reason that overturning the amendments made to this act in 2015, with the exception of retaining digital advertising in the scope, does not help to even the playing field, as government advertising, by law, is not partisan.

While the government has put forward motions related to the Government Advertising Act, the changes proposed in that motion have been advanced to eliminate any perception that the government’s advertising might be able to influence an election campaign, which is in keeping with the intent of the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? There being none, I shall call the vote on PC motion number 82.

Ms. Catherine Fife: A recorded vote, please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There is a request for a recorded vote, which will be entertained.

Ayes

Fife.

Nays

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare PC motion 82 defeated.

We shall move to PC motion number 83, which is an amendment proposing a new section 54.2, subsections 2(1) to (4), Government Advertising Act, 2004. Mr. Dong.

1010

Mr. Han Dong: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“54.2 Subsections 2(1) and (2) of the act are repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Requirements re advertisements

“‘(1) This section applies with respect to any advertisement that a government office proposes to pay to have published in a newspaper or magazine, displayed on a billboard, broadcast on radio or on television or published on the Internet.

“‘Submission for review

“‘(2) The head of the government office shall give a copy of the advertisement to the Office of the Auditor General for review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(3) The government office should not publish, display or broadcast the advertisement before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Just for clarification purposes, in “(3) The government office shall not”—I believe you said “should not.” Would you prefer “shall not” or “should not”?

Mr. Han Dong: “Shall not,” please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): “Shall not.” Thank you.

Further discussion on PC motion 83? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I recommend voting against this motion for the reason that it overturns the amendments made to this act in 2015, with the exception of retaining digital advertising in the scope. It does not help even the playing field, as government advertising, by law, is not partisan. While the government has put forward motions related to the Government Advertising Act, the changes proposed in those motions have been advanced to eliminate any perception that government advertising might be able to influence an election campaign, which is in keeping with the intent.

Further, I want to reiterate that Ontario still is the first and only jurisdiction in Canada to have legislation that bans government-paid advertising in newspapers, magazines, billboards, radio and television.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: The NDP will be supporting this amendment by the PC Party. I would just like to remind the committee members that one of the delegations, Patti Dalton from the London and District Labour Council, on July 27 said very clearly that “the party that currently forms government”—as it relates to government advertising—“privileges and gives media airtime to that government. The expenditure of public money on government advertising is clearly an unfair advantage and should be revisited.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? There being none, I shall call for the vote on PC motion number 83. Those in favour of PC motion number 83? Those opposed? I declare PC motion 83 defeated.

We shall move to PC motion number 84, which is an amendment proposing new section 54.3, subsections 3(2) to (4), Government Advertising Act. Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“54.3 Subsection 3(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Submission for review

“‘(2) The head of the government office shall give a copy of the printed matter to the Office of the Auditor General for review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(3) The government office shall not distribute the printed matter before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

“‘(4) The government office shall not distribute the printed matter if the head of the office receives notice that, in the Auditor General’s opinion, it does not meet the standards.’”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: This proposed motion will re-enact a pre-2015 version of a section of the Government Advertising Act. This motion is connected with the other PC motions intended to restore the Government Advertising Act to its original state prior to the amendments enacted in 2015 while retaining the 2015 addition of digital advertising to the scope of the act.

Chair, I recommend voting against this motion for the same reason I stated before: Overturning amendments made to this act in 2015, with the exception of retaining digital advertising in the scope, does not help even the playing field, as government advertising, by law, is not partisan. While the government has put forward motions related to the Government Advertising Act, the changes proposed in that motion have been advanced to eliminate any perception that the government’s advertising might be able to influence an election campaign, which is in keeping with the intent of the bill, Chair.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Fife?

Ms. Catherine Fife: The NDP will be supporting this amendment. I’d just like to remind committee members that in London, Nelson Wiseman pointed out that Manitoba bans all government advertising in the 90 days leading up to an election, except for emergency, tendering and employment announcements. He says that sounds good to him. “I think there’s too much government advertising generally and much is of no use except to the government, which is trying to promote its image.” That was from Nelson Wiseman in London.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? There being none, I shall call for the vote on PC motion number 84. Those in favour?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Sorry, recorded vote?

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There will be a recorded vote.

Ayes

Fife.

Nays

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare PC motion number 84 defeated.

We shall move to PC motion number 85. Mr. Dong?

Mr. Han Dong: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“54.4 Subsection 4(2) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

“‘Submission for review

“‘(2) The head of the government office shall give a copy of the message to the Office of the Auditor General for review.

“‘Prohibition on use pending review

“‘(3) The government office shall not convey the message before the head of the office receives notice, or is deemed to have received notice, of the results of the review.

“‘Prohibition

“‘(4) The government office shall not convey the message if the head of the office receives notice that, in the Auditor General’s opinion, the message does not meet the standards.’”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Again, Chair, I will recommend voting against this motion. Overturning the amendments made in the act in 2015, with the exception of retaining digital advertising in the scope, does not help even the playing field, as government advertising, by law, is not partisan. While the government has put forward motions related to the Government Advertising Act, the changes proposed in this motion have been advanced to eliminate any perception that government advertising might be able to influence an election campaign, which is in keeping with the intent.

In 2004, we passed this historic legislation because we are against the government using taxpayer dollars for partisan advertising. That position still stands today.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on PC motion 85? Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: The NDP will be supporting PC motion 85. The member opposite references that in 2004, the Government Advertising Act was strengthened. We would agree with that, but in 2015 the strength and the integrity of the Government Advertising Act was greatly diminished. I would like to remind the committee members that when the Auditor General came here, she said, “So, if the intention of Bill 201 is to level the playing field, the influence of government advertising must be considered. There is an advantage to the governing party if it is able to advertise on any issue at any time prior to an election, and at any cost, in the guise of government advertising, especially now that the 2015 changes to the Government Advertising Act allow partisan ads to be deemed non-partisan in nature.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on PC motion 85? If not, I shall call for the vote.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There is a request for a recorded vote on PC motion 85, which proposes new subsection 54.4, subsections 4(2) to (4) of the Government Advertising Act, 2004.

Ayes

Fife.

Nays

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare PC motion number 85 defeated.

We shall move to PC motion number 86, which proposes a new section 54.5, section 4.1 of the Government Advertising Act. Mr. Dong.

1020

Mr. Han Dong: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“54.5 Section 4.1 of the act is repealed.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on PC motion 86? Mr. Rinaldi.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: The proposed motion will repeal section 4.1, which was enacted in 2015. It provides for the Auditor General’s final review of an advertisement as part of a two-stage process involving preliminary and final review.

This motion is connected with other PC motions intended to restore the Government Advertising Act to its original state prior to the amendment enacted in 2015, while retaining the 2015 addition of digital advertising in the scope of the act.

Chair, I would recommend voting against this motion. Overturning the amendments made to this act in 2015, with the exception of retaining digital advertising in the scope, does not help even the playing field, as government advertising, by law, is not partisan.

While the government has put forward motions related to this Government Advertising Act, the changes proposed in the motions have been advanced to eliminate any perception that the government’s advertising might be able to influence an election campaign, which is in keeping with the intent of the bill.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Ms. Fife.

Ms. Catherine Fife: The NDP will be supporting this motion. I’d like to remind the committee members that when the Auditor General came to this committee, specifically on the issue of government advertising, she said, “If Bill 201 is passed as is and not changed, the governing party, through its use of taxpayer-funded advertising prior to an election, might very well have a political advantage, especially since political parties and third parties will be much more limited in their spending during the same time.”

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): Further discussion on PC motion 86? There being none, I shall call for the vote.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Recorded vote, please.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): There is a request for a recorded vote.

Ayes

Fife.

Nays

Berardinetti, Dong, Hoggarth, Malhi, Rinaldi.

The Chair (Mr. Grant Crack): I declare PC motion 86 defeated.

We shall move to PC motion number 87, which proposes new section 54.6, section 6 of the Government Advertising Act, 2004. Mr. Dong.

Mr. Han Dong: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

“54.6 Section 6 of the act is repealed and the following substituted: