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

[Peter Loewen]

I think, candidly, there would probably be a marginal effect on public confidence, but I think that there is a whole suite of things that need to happen in response to the Hogue inquiry and other things to shore up confidence in our electoral system, so this would be a part of that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

There are also enhanced penalties that would be put in place by this bill in relation to the wilful failure of a third party to return contributions made “in the form of a cryptoasset, money order or payment product”.

Do you think those penalties are stiff enough to deter malicious foreign actors?

[Peter Loewen]

I'm not sure at what threshold people feel the need to be honest, but surely it's better than no penalties at all.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Conacher, do you have any comments on this? I'm sure that Democracy Watch would certainly be supportive. Could you say whether or not you're supportive of the steps that are taken in Bill C-65 on crypto-assets, and then comment on whether you think the penalties are stiff enough to deter foreign actors?

[Duff Conacher]

As the Hogue inquiry has heard, just to start with the second topic, the penalties are too weak. The commissioner of Canada Elections pointed out that the penalties are, in her estimation, too weak in many areas to discourage violations, given what you get to win if you cheat.

Our suggestion is that the committee should take a serious look at a sliding scale of penalties based on the income of the individual, entity or business. If your income is higher, then you would pay a higher penalty. That would be an effective approach, and it's being studied quite a bit in the U.S. All the penalties have been set at arbitrary limits, and they should be set at limits that will actually be effective. However, no one's ever studied that.

Also, in terms of cryptocurrency, yes, it should be prohibited. These cryptocurrencies are essentially set up to allow for money laundering and fraud. They're not a step forward in terms of transparency at all and should be prohibited.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'm going to go back to Professor Loewen.

I'm also interested in cracking down on disinformation. I know that in past elections, Elections Canada has reported.... In my riding there was information about voters being provided false information on where to show up in terms of where their poll was for their geographical area in the riding, so they were showing up at the wrong location. Obviously, this confuses voters. It can throw them off and maybe deter them from voting.

Do you think this bill goes far enough and provides some good progress on banning or limiting disinformation in elections?

[Peter Loewen]

I know the bill is going to try. It will be tested in court. There were previously restrictions on the spread of false information in an earlier version of the Canada Elections Act. As you may know, that was turned back by the court, so we'll see how it works.

I will note that the bill's allowing people to vote anywhere in their riding is, in my mind, a relatively sensible move and one that would alleviate this problem a little bit, in the sense that if people are being even accidentally sent to the wrong polling station—because people on different sides of the same street can go to different polling places—the provisions in the bill to vote anywhere in the riding will help with that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks very much.

Professor Loewen, from your perspective, how does Canada's approach to deterring foreign interference in elections compare to the other Five Eyes partners?

[Peter Loewen]

That's a very sensitive thing to comment on. I think that all of those partners are learning over time how to combat foreign interference.

I think we're taking it very seriously at present, but the devil's in the details for how Parliament responds to the findings of the inquiry in terms of legislation. The devil is certainly in the details for how parties respond to findings from the intelligence community and from that commission on foreign interference on a party-by-party basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

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

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have another question for Professor Loewen. In his opening remarks, he mentioned the capacity to deliver the changes proposed in the bill. I would like him to expand on that.

This bill is well intentioned, but what does he mean when he says that the capacity to implement this bill could be less than we might hope for?

[Peter Loewen]

Thank you for asking.

The remarkable thing to me about Canadian elections is that they're really staffed by everyday people. Elections Canada does have returning officers within constituencies or in ridings who then oversee the administration of elections, but I think we all know that when we go into our polling places in Canada, it's effectively people who are non-professionals administering the election and going through the process of looking on a list, trying to find you, confirming your address and whatever else they need to do. It's a great form of participation in our elections and I think it works relatively well.

However, elections really only happen on one day, plus the early voting days. They rely on the coordination of a large number of people who, even if they're doing it for pay, are only doing it every couple of years, so they don't have great experience doing it. That just means that one of the limits on the capacity of this bill to make voting easier is how effectively things can be implemented on election day.

You only need to look as far as British Columbia to know that things can go wrong in handling polling boxes and votes and all of those things. We want to be conscious of the capacity of Elections Canada and that huge army of good Canadians who support them and do the work on election day to carry out any administrative changes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Loewen. That is why I asked about municipal elections earlier. It is often the same staff that oversees both elections at the same time.

Thank you very much.

That is it for me, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mrs. Gill.

Ms. Barron, I will be according you three minutes here.

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

Thank you very much.

Again, thank you to all the witnesses. I am going to direct the remainder of my questions to the CLC witnesses, just to drill into the questions that I have, but thank you for all the information from the other witnesses.

Through you, Chair, to Ms. Vipond, there are many components in this bill. If we were able to put forward amendments that, as you suggested, address the primary issues that you have brought forward today.... There are other components of this bill, as you know, that are working to improve the accessibility of voting, so I am wondering if you could speak a little bit more about how workers would be positively or negatively impacted by some of the other components, such as two additional days of advance polling, improving mail-in ballots, mandatory voting at long-term care homes and at universities, voting anywhere in the riding and all of these components.

How would that help those workers who are part of your membership be able to fully participate in a fair way in our elections process?

[Siobhán Vipond]

We absolutely support growing accessibility to voting because it does help workers. I think you have two things at hand for these changes. If people have more options on when and how they can vote, we know that can mean it's easier to encourage them to vote. Then, there is going to be the exercise of making sure people are aware that this exists.

I am fortunate to talk to workers during elections. We've had a few provincial elections in the last while, and many people are surprised that there are other options than election day. When you talk to people and they can do that, it means that maybe they can vote near their child's care or vote near their work. That kind of flexibility means that there are fewer reasons why they can't do it, and we always want more people to participate in our elections, so I think these are all positive moves.

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

Thank you very much. I do like the example that came up. In the recent B.C. election, this change was implemented for people to be able to vote at any polling station in their riding. I heard first-hand from people about how much they appreciated that. That would be a good change for us to make federally, I believe, as well.

The last question I want to ask is whether there is anything that you've missed that you want to make sure we are aware of.

[Siobhán Vipond]

We already have rules that ensure that foreign union money is not allowed to participate in our third parties. I think that is important. We are very transparent about where the money's coming from and how we're spending it. What we're really trying to address here are the limitations that currently exist. That means that we can't communicate with our members because it's getting wrapped up in this third party spending. We have not only legal obligations but also a role in democracy.

We hope that these changes, which are relatively narrow in scope and understand the special role that unions and workers have in our democracy through our unions, can be addressed because we all are better if there's a strong democracy.

We're all happy that you're the elected officials, but democracy is participation by everybody in Canada. Unions are a big part of that for workers, so that's just going to be an important step for us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

Colleagues, that brings us to the end of the first panel, so I'm going to briefly suspend for about five minutes to allow for us to turn over.

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here today and contributing to our study on Bill C-65.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

I call the meeting back to order.

Colleagues, we are going to begin with our second panel.

We have a new suite of witnesses to welcome. Appearing as an individual, from McCarthy Tétrault, is Connor Bildfell. From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we have Franco Terrazzano, the federal director, and Ryan Thorpe, an investigative journalist. From the Public Service Alliance of Canada, we have Sharon DeSousa, the national president; Michele Girash, the assistant director of communications, political action and campaigns; and Sasha Hart, general counsel.

Witnesses, for those of you who may not be familiar with appearing in front of the committee, if you're not using your earpiece, we ask that you place it on the stickers you see before you. This is to avoid any audio interference, which can be detrimental to the health and well-being of our interpreters. If you are using them and they're on your ear, of course, that is moot.

We will have five-minute testimony from each group or individual, and then we will head into our usual rounds of questioning.

With that, Mr. Bildfell, I turn the floor over to you for five minutes.

[Connor Bildfell, Lawyer, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is a privilege to appear before this committee. Thank you for inviting me.

My name is Connor Bildfell. I'm a lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault in Vancouver, and my practice includes both privacy and constitutional litigation. I appear before you today in my personal capacity. My remarks today will focus on two aspects of Bill C-65. The first concerns privacy, and the second concerns election integrity.

Starting with privacy, this bill proposes a national, uniform and exclusive privacy regime applicable to federal political parties. There are, of course, good reasons to have a uniform regime. For example, having a uniform regime ensures that voters across the country benefit from the same set of privacy rules. Equally, requiring federal political parties to comply with a series of privacy laws that vary from province to province could create compliance challenges, especially in today’s digital environment where personal information flows freely across borders.

Make no mistake—this bill engages complex legal issues, and questions remain about how those issues will play out. For example, in the province where I practise, both the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. and the B.C. Supreme Court have ruled that federal political parties must comply not only with the Canada Elections Act’s privacy requirements but also with provincial privacy requirements. Those rulings are now on appeal before the B.C. Court of Appeal, and the constitutional applicability of provincial privacy laws to federal political parties remains very much in question.

Moreover, as you heard from Dr. Bannerman last week, some Canadians have raised concerns that the proposed federal regime is not as rigorous as existing provincial privacy laws and the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Some have raised concerns that the regime is not subject to oversight by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. The committee’s study of this bill offers an opportunity to consider these legal issues and engage with these concerns.

To turn to the second topic, Bill C-65 also includes election integrity measures, including provisions that target false or misleading statements about certain matters relating to elections. Most Canadians can agree on at least two things: First, freedom of expression is good; second, misinformation is bad. The challenge for policy-makers like you is to create clear and targeted laws that effectively combat misinformation without chilling legitimate political speech, which enjoys the highest level of protection under Canadian constitutional law. Striking this balance is not always easy.

While Bill C-65 proposes a number of measures designed to strike this balance, some of the existing statutory provisions that Bill C-65 does not address raise concerns. For example, paragraph 91(1)(b) of the existing Canada Elections Act prohibits, among other things, false statements about a candidate’s “education, professional qualifications or membership in a group or association of a candidate”. It also prohibits the same kinds of false statements about public figures associated with a political party.

The issue is this: Are these prohibitions sufficiently clear and targeted to avoid chilling legitimate political speech, or are they so vague that some individuals may self-censor to avoid potentially falling afoul of these prohibitions and facing serious penalties?

To illustrate, if someone states that a candidate is a socialist or a member of the alt-right, do they risk prosecution? If a candidate states that they worked as an insurance broker, but they never received their accreditation, do they risk prosecution? What about satire, parody or hyperbole? Are those off limits? Who falls within the class of public figures associated with a political party—for example, spouses of party leaders, former politicians or someone like Mark Carney?

These questions should be taken seriously because protecting legitimate political speech and election integrity are both important objectives that underpin the Canada Elections Act.

The committee's study of this bill offers an opportunity to consider these legal issues and engage with these questions. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to our discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bildfell.

Mr. Terrazzano, I understand you'll be speaking on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I turn the floor to you for five minutes.

[Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

My name is Franco Terrazzano. I'm with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and I'm here to give a voice to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who don't want you to delay the next election and stick taxpayers with the bill for millions in pensions for members of Parliament.

The government's proposal to delay the election by one week would give taxpayer-funded pensions to up to 80 MPs who would otherwise not qualify. That's up to $120 million in pensions for those politicians. Some of those politicians will have served for barely six years and receive more than $2 million in pensions—six years for $2 million in taxpayer-funded pensions.

There are two simple things the government could do to avoid sticking ordinary Canadians with a huge bill for taxpayer-funded pensions for dozens of politicians who don't deserve them.

First is to make the election earlier. There are about 350 days between now and the next scheduled election date of October 20, 2025. I have confidence that at least one of the 338 members of Parliament and 400,000 federal government bureaucrats can figure out one day out of those 350 days to hold the election.

Second is that if, somehow, not a single MP or bureaucrat can figure out an election date on one of the 350 days between now and next October, then change the pension eligibility date so it's after the next election. Making taxpayers pay tens of millions of dollars so dozens of extra politicians can take a pension is unacceptable. Moving the election by just one week will mean up to 80 MPs will receive a pension they shouldn't. Those pensions will total up to $120 million. Even if the final cost to taxpayers is half of that—say, $60 million—think of the money you're taking out of people's pockets and think about how that conversation is going to go the next time you're knocking on your voters' doors.

Sixty million dollars is a year's worth of groceries for 3,000 families. Are you going to look your voters in the eye and tell them pensions for politicians are more important than food for families? Sixty million dollars is 4,000 families' income tax bills. Are you going to look your voters in the eye and tell them pensions for politicians are more important than cutting taxes for their entire neighbourhood? If you're not willing to have that conversation, you shouldn't be willing to give dozens of extra politicians a pension.

If you do change the date of an election to give dozens of politicians a pension, think of what you're doing. You're taking more money out of the pockets of your voters; you're taking more money out of the pockets of your local businesses; you're taking more money out of the pockets of the plumbers, paramedics, pilots and police officers in your communities; and you're giving their money to highly paid politicians in Ottawa who shouldn't qualify for that pension—politicians whose yearly salary is already between $200,000 and $300,000, politicians who take a pay raise every single year and politicians who already get a $100,000 severance and a $15,000 transition allowance.

I know, as I'm sure you do, too, that there are countless Canadians who are losing sleep worrying about the cost of groceries, worrying about the rising pile of bills they need to pay and worrying about coming up short for Christmas, but I bet there isn't a single Canadian losing a single second of sleep worrying that a politician in Ottawa may not get a lifetime taxpayer-funded pension.

Politicians should use their six-figure salaries, which are about triple that of the average salary of the average Canadian worker, to save for their retirements. Politicians should not try to move a scheduled election so more of them can collect a taxpayer-funded pension for the rest of their lives.

It's hard to blame taxpayers for wondering why the government wants to move the election date. The government says it's moving the election to avoid a religious holiday, but the simple fact is that 80 MPs aren't eligible for their taxpayer-funded pension until the day after the scheduled election. At minimum, you have to admit that raises a very important question: Is this really about a religious holiday, or is this really about pension eligibility for dozens of extra politicians?

Fortunately, you can put that question to rest. If you want to move the election to avoid a religious holiday, that's fine. There are two simple solutions for moving the election to avoid a religious holiday without taking millions more from taxpayers: Make the election earlier, or make the pension eligibility date just a little later.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Ms. DeSousa, I understand you'll be speaking on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, so I'll turn the floor over to you.

[Sharon DeSousa, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Good afternoon. My name is Sharon DeSousa and I am the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, or PSAC. I am joined by our General Counsel, Sasha Hart, and our Assistant Director, Communications, Political Action and Campaigns, Michele Girash.

The PSAC represents over 245,000 workers from every province and every territory across the country.

Thank you very much for allowing us to speak to you on this particular project.

We welcome this effort to remove barriers and make it easy for people to vote. We support adding additional voting days and making it easier to cast mail-in ballots. Helping Elections Canada engage voters and increase turnout, especially among young voters, is another great step forward.

While we welcome this bill and its goals, we do have some concerns about it as drafted and, in particular, its important impact on the democratic operations of trade unions, particularly public sector unions like PSAC. We have three main concerns.

First, the bill fails to make changes to the act to make sure our ability to engage our members or advocate on their behalf doesn't risk being obstructed. It's important that committee members understand the unique position of public service unions like PSAC. As a federal bargaining agent, many of our members are employees of the federal government. The governing party is their employer, and other parties running in an election are their potential future employers.

Talking to our members about workplace issues is a primary responsibility of every union and simply can't be separated from talking to them about election issues. We have a legal duty to represent, advocate for and inform our members on issues that affect their working conditions. This is a necessary part of our work. Restricting our ability to talk freely about things like cuts to public services or remote work arrangements or to comment on positions that parties are taking places us in an untenable position.

We urge the committee to amend the definitions of “partisan activity” and “election survey” to make sure communications between a union and its members aren't unintentionally obstructed.

Second, the bill proposes new reporting requirements for third party contributions. As drafted, new reporting requirements could be interpreted to impose onerous new obligations on unions around things like the citizenship status of our members. This raises serious constitutional and privacy concerns for our members.

It creates a new obligation not only for us but also for our employers. Are Treasury Board, Crown corporations and agencies even collecting this information in such a way that they can send it to all unions? To fix this, the committee should amend the definition of “monetary contribution” to confirm that union dues are not considered contributions under the act.

Third, the bill risks making it harder for not-for-profit organizations to work together. As drafted, the bill prohibits third parties from using contributions from anyone other than Canadian individuals, even if all organizations involved are registered and all are reporting contributions under the act. This can be easily fixed by amending the bill to allow contributions between registered third parties.

Thank you again for inviting us. I hope all parties agree to the simple changes to fix these problems and to remove the risk that this bill unfairly restricts our union's ability to advocate for and communicate with our members.

We are happy to answer any questions.