Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 5th, 2024

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Why, thank you, Mr. Terrazzano. I appreciate that.

We did put forward an amendment to resolve this issue. Just to clarify, with an amendment that returns this date back to the original date, would your legitimate concerns remain?

[Franco Terrazzano]

I'm sorry. If it goes back to October 20...?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

If this clause that was put into the bill was no longer in the bill—the clause that moved the election date, which, rightfully so, provided pensions to MPs who did not deserve them.... I agree with you that this is not the time to be talking about MPs' pensions. If that were no longer in the bill, would this issue be resolved?

[Franco Terrazzano]

The only issue the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has...granted we're not experts on all these other issues.

If you do not give more pensions to those politicians, then you solve the issue and I don't have to be here today.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Excellent. Thank you so much.

I look forward to hearing from all members their responses to the amendment once we get into that section of this debate. I hope, Mr. Terrazzano, that you are happy with the responses from MPs at that time. I'm going to move on.

Ms. DeSousa, I'm happy that you're here today. Thank you for bringing forward those concerns.

The first question I want to ask you is around the piece you mentioned about how the current bill fails to allow.... It's about the advocacy of members and that it's not obstructed. Can you speak a bit about how important it is, in your position, that you're able to communicate effectively with the members you are representing and advocating on behalf of?

[Sharon DeSousa]

Thank you very much.

Through the chair, without a doubt, we are in a very unique position as a union in which we have to converse with our members. It's quite daunting when the employer is actually the Government of Canada and when the various future employers are all running in the election. However, we need to, without a doubt, be able to communicate to our members on various issues. I don't think the intent of this bill was to in fact impede, but there is definitely a possible risk that it could in fact impede our ability. We just want to make sure that's clarified.

At the end of the day, we have an obligation to communicate on various issues, and we want to ensure, for all of our members, regardless of the platform we choose, whether it's in written format or whether we put something on our website, that we're not in fact contravening the Elections Act. We just wanted to make sure that it's clarified.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much.

You also talked about concerns around third party contributions, and you spoke about the constitutional and privacy concerns of members. Can you elaborate a bit further on those concerns?

[Sharon DeSousa]

Sure.

Go ahead, Ms. Hart.

[Sasha Hart, General Counsel, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you for that important question. Through the chair, we're happy to respond.

When it comes to the third party contributions piece, our constitutional concern is simply that it engages freedom of association. Unions and their members have the right not only to work in coalition with other unions but also to work through their own union on important issues. The pieces of the bill that touch on the third party to third party contributions will, in our view, unnecessarily inhibit that ability. That's what, for us, engages the freedom of association.

However, there is also another constitutional concern we have, and that relates to the possibility that under the current wording of the bill, the definition of “contributions” under the act could capture union dues. If it does, that would mean reporting vast amounts of personal information about our members to Elections Canada, and that's where we have privacy concerns around that possibility in terms of section 8, “unreasonable search or seizure”.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much. You answered the second question that I had around that as well, so thank you. That's much clearer for me.

I have another question. I'm wondering, Ms. DeSousa, if you can clarify if these concerns that you brought forward today were addressed. Other components of the bill, of course, are trying to increase accessibility for Canadians to be able to fully participate in elections. That ranges from access to polling stations to where they're located, to the amount of time or the days that are involved.

Can you speak to the benefits to members and to workers across the country when we have more accessible elections and some of these components that are in the bill?

[Sharon DeSousa]

Through the chair, thank you so much for the question.

I want to bring up a very important point: There's an idea that our members or workers only have one job. They don't. In this economy, in fact, they work multiple jobs. They have family obligations, whether it's elder care or child care. They need more opportunities to vote. That is what's very important. If all of the other pieces we presented are addressed....

I want to point out, once again, that I don't think the intention was to deliberately impede our ability, as I stated in my three points. If this were clarified, in fact, it would be a benefit to all those who have voting rights—not just our members but also everyone. It's important for democracy and for engaging young workers at this point in time, so they have their say in this election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Barron.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will briefly go over the history of this infamous push to delay the date of the next election by one week.

Last week, we learned from a Privy Council Office representative, Mr. Sutherland, that the Liberals and the NDP negotiated and prepared Bill C‑65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, together. One of the measures in the bill is to delay the date of the 2025 election by one week. All of that happened behind closed doors. We knew it was happening because it was part of the agreement between the Liberal Party and the NDP.

I have here an article dated March 20 from iPolitics. It states:

Liberals introduce legislation updating the Elections Act, in keeping with NDP pact.

MP Daniel Blaikie negotiated the bill for the NDP. He appeared alongside LeBlanc for what he said would likely be his last media availability on Parliament Hill....

Evidently, everything in Bill C‑65 was negotiated between the Liberals and the NDP.

Mr. Terrazzano, in June, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation polled Canadians to find out their opinions on the decision to push back the date of the election by one week. The results were made public.

Can you tell us what were the poll's results?

[Franco Terrazzano]

Thank you for the question.

I believe you're referring to a national Leger poll. Is that right? The poll shows that 63% of Canadians are against delaying the election to secure pensions for extra MPs. When you remove the undecideds, 80% of Canadians are against this. It's not just the Canadian Taxpayers Federation against this. It's not just the Conservatives who have spoken out, or the NDP and Bloc speaking out.

The vast majority of Canadians are against this, including people who vote for every party.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Well, that is the thing, Mr. Terrazzano. When did the NDP start to speak out against the one-week delay? From what I just heard Ms. Barron say, it was last June, right after the results of the Leger marketing firm poll came out. When the New Democrats realized how negatively Canadians were reacting to that decision—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Hold on, Mr. Berthold, we have a point of order.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Unfortunately, Mr. Duncan, all points of order will be recognized until I hear what they're about.

Ms. Barron, go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to ask for some clarification. My name is being directly quoted here, but I don't think the facts were straight on when this came forward.

I was in the House of Commons standing in May, as well as the timing of this amendment coming forward in June. Those are some facts. Perhaps the member can review his information before making accusations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. You're entering into debate.

Should there be an issue with the ascribing of testimony, we'll make sure we get it corrected for the record. I didn't hear it, and I don't have those original documents in front of me, so I can't comment at the moment.

Mr. Berthold, I—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I also do not have all the information mentioned by the NDP member, Mr. Chair, unfortunately. All I know is that it is a very plausible scenario.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay. I will restart the clock, Mr. Berthold. You have two minutes and 20 seconds left.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Terrazzano, if the other opposition parties were to vote with us to replace the government before February 25, 2025, you would be spared another pension, the NDP leader's; on that date, he will reach the six-year mark as an MP. We therefore have an opportunity to act even more quickly and to redouble our efforts to—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.