Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Ms. Normandin for three and a half minutes.

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

Thank you.

Minister, you broached the issue of party financing when you mentioned that Stephen Harper had done away with public funding for political parties. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the relationship between the use of public money and the expression of democratic voting.

Since the funding is based on the number of votes received, we know there is a direct correlation between public money and number of voters. However, under the current system, which uses tax credits, I would argue that the distribution of public funds is actually based on how deep the pockets of political party donors are.

Here's a hypothetical scenario. If I give the Bloc Québécois $400, I get a tax credit of $300. Indirectly, then, I'm forcing the government to give the Bloc Québécois $300. The connection to public funds is more dependent on voters' ability to donate.

Do you see the situation the same way?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I've taken part in many iterations of this debate, and I think there are good arguments on both sides. Some countries, of course, have a system of public funding for political parties. Federally, in Canada, Parliament decided to take away political parties' access to that funding and to limit their funding to contributions from individual Canadians.

I'm intrigued, but not convinced, by the arguments in favour of public funding for political parties. Nevertheless, I think it's a valid argument. I believe you or your colleague brought that up in the House during second reading debate, and I think it's a fair point.

Obviously, Canadian taxpayers contribute to the funding of all parties through tax refunds, which means political parties do receive public funding, but through our income tax system, not directly. That is the choice that was made in the past, and we decided not to revisit it in this review of the Canada Elections Act. It's a never-ending debate, as far as I'm concerned.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to turn to nomination papers and the one-signature-per-elector requirement. Do you agree with me that the only effect we can hope the measure will have is deterrence, not punishment?

The Chief Electoral Officer told us that it would be impossible to cross-check signatures and that a candidate's nomination couldn't be rejected on the grounds that a person had signed multiple nomination papers.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes. Clearly, Parliament passes all kinds of legislation it hopes will serve as deterrence, even though there is no reasonable way to ensure compliance at all times. In this case, however, if Parliament passes these new provisions, it will make known its discomfort with the activity. I think Elections Canada's oversight should come into play in the minds of those wanting to sign multiple nomination papers. I think it will have a fairly strong deterrent, if not coercive, effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Mr. Jackson and Mr. Calkins will be splitting their time. I think it is Mr. Jackson first, but I will leave it to you.

You have six minutes.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, I want to begin by saying that I appreciate your collaborative nature on this piece of legislation. As a new member of Parliament, this is the first government bill I've had the opportunity to scrutinize at committee, and it's very good to see.

I wonder if you would agree that the purpose of the bill is to collaborate and put forward improvements that will hopefully reassure Canadians of the soundness of our electoral system and the way we elect a government in the country. Would that be a fair assessment to you?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes. The only thing I'd add to that is that it is informed by expert opinion and analysis as offered by the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner and the foreign interference inquiry.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Sure.

Do you think this committee plays an important role in reassuring Canadians of that purpose as part of the legislative process?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think this sends an incredibly strong message. When we look around the world, when parties are.... We don't agree on much, Mr. Jackson, but when we can agree on the rules of the game, I think that sends an incredibly strong, unmistakable message to Canadians, to your constituents and mine, and around the world, that in this day and age parties are able to come together and agree on the rules and always find a more perfect expression of our democracy. That's pretty potent.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I appreciate that, Minister. I do think the committee forum is the best place for those types of agreements to come.

After your government obtained the majority last week, you shut down a number of committees. I wonder if you think that is counter to the purpose of what Bill C-25 is trying to do. Are you sending conflicting messages?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I don't think that's any different. We're always looking for the purest expression of democracy. I think the government has a large—probably the largest—role to play in ensuring that the work of this committee, as it is currently, be done in public and done in a transparent a way. I believe fervently in the role of Commons' committees to study legislation, approve spending, examine government policies and priorities, and make a report on those.

Unfortunately, it sometimes falls down in the execution, but I accept that the government has the largest role in making sure that this is the case, mostly if not always.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

In terms of moving forward then, we can expect less of the behaviour of last week—not more.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I can tell you what you can expect if you tell me what I can expect.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That's fair enough, Minister.

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Minister.

One of the gaps that we have, from the foreign interference investigation, was the nomination process. I appreciate the efforts on the actual delivery of an election, but I think we've seen and heard enough testimony to understand that nomination contests, which are very party-oriented.... I think there's a reluctance, for some, to let Elections Canada enter into the nomination process too much, yet here we are, dealing with this potential problem. We knew about 11 people who might have been influenced. All political parties were involved in this problem. It was particularly from the United Front.

You've added some penalties for this. What about the prescriptive nature of nominations? Is that going to change in the legislation, or is that something you're going to allow the electoral officer to design and implement?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Are you talking about the actual holding of nominations and rules governing nominations?

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

That's correct.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Calkins, you and I share a bit of history around this place. You will know that in 2003, I believe, the Elections Act began to regulate party processes, especially the financing of party processes.

We have, over the years, tweaked and tried to continue to perfect that system. The line that we have never gone over, and one that I do not believe we should traverse, is that political parties should be able to govern their own democracies. That is not to say there are not things like financing that should have public and legal scrutiny. Parliament has, in its wisdom, decided to do that, and I think that's a good thing.

Parties are also public goods. They are imperfect. They are made up of volunteers. Anyone who has served on a volunteer board, whether it's inside a political party, in a charity or in any other kind of organization, knows that volunteer organizations are sprawling and hard to govern, and it's hard to enforce rigorous standards.

However, I think that the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democrats, the Greens and the Liberal Party of Canada, for sure, should be the default choices for governing how their candidates are chosen, as in who is eligible and how the processes of electing candidates or leaders, for that matter, are set out. The financing, as is appropriate, is a public matter and therefore should be regulated by our public institutions, like Elections Canada.

The actual rules governing nominations and democracy in political parties—

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

You're—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'm going to have to cut you off there. You're over.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think it's important to stay in their hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

You're also over.

I admonished the minister.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I'm sure you agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We'll turn to Mr. Louis for six minutes, please.