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

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Berthold, I am sorry to have to cut you off.

Ms. Barron, go ahead on a point of order.

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

I apologize, Mr. Chair, for the interruption.

I was hoping we could find some relevancy to the information being provided right now and how it actually relates to this bill. I don't feel it is relevant.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

I'm not hearing anything from Monsieur Berthold that is veering outside of the realm of relevance.

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

On this point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Berthold, on the same point of order.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was simply reacting to something Mr. Terrazzano said about ensuring that no MP would receive a pension prematurely. I only wanted to give an example of another premature pension that could be prevented. It was perfectly relevant to the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

You have the floor for the remainder of your time in this round. You have a minute and a half.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. DeSousa.

I stated very clearly earlier that the NDP played a very active role in drafting Bill C‑65. Since we have started hearing from witnesses on this bill, at least two union representatives showed extreme disappointment with the bill.

Are you disappointed with the bill as well?

Usually, the NDP is supposed to represent unions, but it looks like it missed the mark with this bill.

[Sharon DeSousa]

Through the chair, I thank Monsieur Berthold for the question.

First of all, PSAC is non-partisan. We believe in educating our members on all issues. They then choose who they wish to vote for. I just wanted to say that straight away.

Secondly, our members have seen various governments formed from various parties. They have been loyal and have worked hard under whatever government is formed. It's not up to me here, at this point in time, to comment on any single party.

What we're concerned about is the formation, what this bill entails and how it's passed.

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

I simply wanted to note that the NDP, who is usually known for representing unions, seems to have sadly missed the mark in this case.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Mrs. Romanado, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here.

I want to start, first, with Mr. Terrazzano.

I want you to know that, on August 15, 2021, the Prime Minister called an election for September 20, 2021, which was just shy of a month before anyone elected in 2015 who did not win the election would be eligible. This was not a fixed election date. If the Prime Minister wanted to allow members of Parliament to get their pensions, he could have called that election a month later, and it would have happened. Just so you know, when the amendment is brought forward during clause-by-clause, I will be supporting keeping the election date on October 20.

Have you read the rest of the bill, and are there any comments you have?

[Franco Terrazzano]

My initial comment is this: When you vote to keep the election date where it is—and I hope everyone in the committee votes to keep the election date where it is, to have the election earlier or to extend the pension eligibility later—I'll give you.... We'll put out a news release, and we'll be very appreciative.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I don't need a gold star.

I'm asking whether you have any questions or feedback about the rest of the bill. It's 48 pages long. Do you have anything else to add to the bill?

[Franco Terrazzano]

No. Our concern is about pensions and the cost to taxpayers.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Okay.

My next question is for Mr. Bildfell.

There was something very interesting that you mentioned about false statements made about either candidates or members. I believe it was under paragraph 91(1)(b).

Can you elaborate a little more on that? I would like to dig down into that one.

[Connor Bildfell]

Certainly.

Paragraph 91(1)(b) of the Canada Elections Act, as it currently exists, prohibits certain types of false or misleading statements. It prohibits those sorts of statements not only about candidates, prospective candidates and leaders of political parties but also about “a public figure associated with a political party.”

One of the issues I was raising is this: Who does that encompass? What sorts of individuals might fall within that final category of “public figure associated with a political party”? I simply wanted to raise this issue for your attention because there can be a chilling effect with these laws. In the context of elections, political speech is regarded as sitting at the apex of freedom of expression under paragraph 2(b) of the charter. To the extent that some of our laws may chill the expression of political information and views, I think that's a problem.

The key for you, as policy-makers, is to ensure these laws are clear, understandable and can be known in advance, so we know what's onside and what's offside. I think that's critical.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

On that note, outside of Bill C-65, we've been seeing in the House.... We have something called “parliamentary privilege”, which allows a member of Parliament to speak freely in the House and not be persecuted for what they say in the House. You mentioned, in your opening statements, Mr. Carney, and we've seen in the House statements made about Mr. Carney—who is not an elected official—questioning his integrity and so on and so forth.

Now, because that is happening inside the House of Commons, there is something called parliamentary privilege that protects members in being able to say such things, but what do you think about the impact, then, on regular Canadians who are considering running for office and see such things happening in the chamber? That maybe would make them contemplate whether or not they would want to run for office because they're seeing such things, and they would not actually fall under Bill C-65, under paragraph 91(1)(b) about false statements being made.

Is that accurate? What is to prevent a politician from standing in the House and attacking an adversary candidate running against them?

[Connor Bildfell]

That question engages the concept, as you mentioned, of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege, of course, is the privilege that generally protects anything that is said in the context of parliamentary debate from being actionable in law. For example, parliamentarians typically can't bring defamation claims against other parliamentarians based on what is said in the House.

I think your concern is whether that privilege may in some ways deter individuals from running for office. I'm not able to speak to whether in fact there is a concern amongst potential prospective candidates that what is said in the House of Commons may deter them from running, but the simple point that I wish to make is that we're principally concerned with what's happening outside of the House.

We're concerned with what's happening in the ordinary hurly-burly kinds of debates that happen at dinner tables and on social media across Canada. In those contexts, I think it's important that Canadians be able to express themselves without fear that they may be prosecuted for statements that may or may not fall offside this particular provision. I think it's crucial to have clarity.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Mrs. Gill, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bildfell, you talked about electoral integrity in a general sense. I want to go into more detail on subsections 243.01(1) and 243.01(2) of the Canada Elections Act. I am paraphrasing, but the act states that a person who needs help can be accompanied into the voting compartment by a friend or their spouse or common-law partner, for example, to help them mark their ballot. The act then specifies that the person accompanying the voter has to make a solemn declaration that they will not, for instance, disclose the result of the person's vote or, obviously, try to influence the person's vote.

Bill C‑65 proposes to amend both of these subsections. Proposed subsection 243.01(1) states that the voter can be accompanied simply by “a person” and not necessarily by someone they trust. Subsection 243.01(2) would be repealed. The person accompanying the voter would no longer need to make a declaration.

What do you think of these amendments? Are they desirable? Could they jeopardize the validity or the neutrality of the electoral process or the integrity of the person's vote?

[Connor Bildfell]

Thank you for the question.

I think the basic provision that currently exists, as you've pointed out, is section 243 of the Canada Elections Act. As you point out, there is a requirement to complete a declaration. That's paragraph 243(1)(a). I think the intention behind that declaration is simply to enhance the integrity of the process and to ensure the process is fair and not concerning.

I think the declaration may well serve a legitimate purpose. The removal of that declaration may, in some ways at least, have the perception of reducing the safeguards in place. I think it's something for this committee to consider: whether there may even be a perception that removing that declaration requirement may in some ways reduce faith in the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

Ms. Barron, you are our last speaker for today. You have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you. My last question is going to be for Ms. DeSousa.

Ms. DeSousa, we know that unions function on the direction of their membership, which is very different from larger corporations and individuals, as examples. There was a point that I believe you made—it was also made previously by the CLC—about the fact that the Canada Elections Act currently has strong constraints on foreign union involvement in elections. I'm wondering whether you could speak a bit more about that piece so that we have a better understanding of how that works specific to unions.