Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 10th, 2025

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for moving this motion. From my first glance at the text, I certainly understand what the intent is. I will be supporting this motion, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if my colleague who moved the motion could give us any information about what her expected timeline is, or if she would like to have a date for this recommendation to be sent back to the House. Does she have some deadlines? I would like to get a sense from her of the timeline she would like to have this done in.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The time frame for the study would obviously depend on the availability of witnesses.

One important witness we would absolutely have to hear from is the Chief Electoral Officer. If the motion is adopted, we could go ahead and send him an invitation so that, ideally, he could appear before the committee in an upcoming meeting.

The rest would depend on the availability of witnesses and their willingness to appear. The motion calls on the committee to hear from party representatives and representatives of elector groups, if they wish. If none wanted to appear, the study could be put on hold for a time. Some of the study, then, would depend on unknowns, in terms of the timetable.

That said, if the committee votes in favour of the motion, we can have the analysts start working on this over the summer. I see them smiling. They’d have something to sink their teeth into until we come back in the fall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I have a question, if I may, about how we would then go forward.

Subsection (b) has “electors or representatives of elector groups”. That seems to encompass a lot of Canadians, whereas referring to representatives of each of the political parties and the Chief Electoral Officer is very specific.

This is very broad, and I don't know how we would interpret it in terms of timing and witnesses and having an estimate of what that looks like.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

You’re right. We had some people in mind when we were drafting the motion, but we didn’t want to limit the study, since there may have been incidents during the election campaign that we don’t know about yet. One group I can think of is indigenous communities who weren’t able to vote in certain ridings because the polling stations were closed.

Once the motion has been adopted and is in effect, so to speak, interested parties could contact members on the committee, who could then ask the clerk to send those people an invitation. I should point out that, in any event, we would spend a total of two hours hearing from witnesses in relation to that aspect of the study, whether it’s representatives from one, two, three or four groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I understand what you're looking at, but doesn't subsection (d) address that concern? If you have concerns about indigenous voters or any particular group, the parties would then supply that list, rather than....

I'm trying not to leave it too vague so that the clerk has to try to interpret what it looks like.

In terms of a timeline, what are we looking at?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, I think item (d) covers the potential representatives referred to in item (b). You make a good point.

I would be open to a friendly amendment to remove item (b) from the motion, since the committee’s intention would be known given the discussion we’re having now, after all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, Madam Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to move an amendment to her motion.

I move as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the committee undertake a study of the changes that need to be made in the implementation and interpretation of the electoral process and the application of the Canada Elections Act when casting a ballot in a federal election; and that this study include, but not be limited to, the incidents that have already been made public, provided that, in the order listed, the committee invite the following witnesses: (a) representatives of each political party who wish to speak on this subject”.

I'm going to skip subsection (b) for now and go to subsection (c), which would read, “(c) the Chief Executive Officer of Elections Canada; and (d) any other witnesses the committee deems relevant; and that the committee report its recommendations, observations and recommendations to the House.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'll ask you to repeat it, but for clarification, are you deleting subsection (b)?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I added “and interpretation” after “implementation”. After “Elections Act”, I added “when casting a ballot in a federal election”. I struck out “in order to prevent the failures and breaches that occurred during the 45th general election”, and I skipped subsection (b) as a clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

You skipped (b) as a clause. Are you deleting (b) as a clause?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Just for discussion, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Okay. We're deleting subsection (b).

Going to debate on the amendment, I see Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

The amendment covers a number of things, so I will try to address them in order.

Removing item (b), I see as a friendly amendment. I agree with just taking it out.

As far as adding “and interpretation” goes, I see it as a friendly amendment as well. The act has to be interpreted when it is being implemented, so I have no problem with that addition.

However, I am opposed to removing the part that reads “in order to prevent the failures and breaches that occurred during the 45th general election”. One reason is that Elections Canada has already admitted that problems and failures occurred. I think that contributes to the purpose of the study, so I object to that part of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I have Mr. Calkins, and then we'll go to Madam Kayabaga.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate Ms. Normandin's acceptance of the three changes proposed in the amendment by Ms. Kayabaga. There are three, Madame Normandin, and I understand that you consider two of them friendly amendments. I just want to state for the record that I would like it—even though it's your motion, Madame Normandin—if we kept the “electors or representatives of elector groups”, item (b), in the list.

My rationale for suggesting that would be that it's not.... Witnesses come before this committee in a couple of ways. The most common way, of course, is that we, as members of Parliament and of our various political parties, submit witness lists to the clerk of the committee, but it's also perfectly acceptable for everyday, ordinary Canadians, once they find out that a study has been undertaken by a committee, to submit written briefs as part of the study. Quite frankly, it's even acceptable for them to make a request to the clerk that they would like to physically appear, either in person or virtually, before the committee.

I think removing section (b) might deter people who would not otherwise understand that they would be entitled to do the same thing under item (d): “any other witnesses the committee deems relevant”. The way I would interpret item (d), if I were reading this as an everyday citizen of Canada, is that “any other witnesses the committee deems relevant” means only the ones that the committee has decided to take under consideration, whereas I would interpret item (b) to mean that I'm invited as an elector or a representative of an elector group to make a case before the committee. Therefore, I would strongly recommend that item (b) be left in the language of the original motion.

I have no problem with the addition of “and interpretation” to the motion, but I do believe that the other proposal by Madam Kayabaga with reference to casting a ballot would significantly limit the scope of the study to a point where I think items that would be important to Canadians would be missed.

I would encourage colleagues at the table to keep those points in mind when deciding on how to vote on this amendment. I would not be in support of that particular change, or those two changes, but I am in support of the one proposed change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I appreciate that.

Again, it's at the committee's discretion. If you wish to open it that wide in terms of what the committee will receive, that is the decision of the committee.

We'll go to Madam Kayabaga and then Mr. Cooper.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Just for clarification, I realize now that I would have to subamend. My intention was not to remove subsection (b). There was still conversation with the clerk on whether there was the possibility of doing this, and I wanted to wait for that discussion to end.

Maybe I can move a subamendment to put back subsection (b), since there has been a motion to remove it. Does that make sense?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Perhaps we can do it on unanimous consent.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I understand that Mr. Cooper still wishes to speak, but we can do it on unanimous consent, based on what Mr. Calkins, Madame Normandin and Madam Kayabaga are saying. We're in agreement to keep the first two points that—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Chair, is there unanimous consent to keep subsection (b)?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Yes. It's to keep the first two points, but then leave in clause (b).

Do we have consent?

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Cooper, do you wish to speak? No, you're good for now. That's excellent.

We'll vote on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment—

I'm sorry, Madame Normandin. You wish to speak. Go ahead, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I actually just need clarification on what we are voting on.

The reality is that the amendment has two parts. One is to add the words “and interpretation”, and the other is to remove part of the motion and replace it with something else.

Are we voting on the entire motion? If so, I move that we split the amendment and have two separate votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Usually we do this all at once.

Madam Kayabaga, could you reread your motion as amended, please?