Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

The bill goes some way towards closing what are significant loopholes that currently allow foreign sources of funding to be used by registered third parties for regulated pre-election and election activities. However, the bill provides for an exception whereby third parties can use their own funds if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period.

This appears to leave the door open to foreign money being used by third parties for regulated activities. For example, it's unclear how contributions made in the year prior to the pre-election period would be treated and whether they would be treated as melded into part of the third party's own funds and, therefore, funds that could be used for regulated activities.

Given that, why not simply close all loopholes with respect to foreign funding and require third parties, without exception, to set up a bank account with contributions coming exclusively from individual Canadians and permanent residents, just like political parties?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you. That's a good question.

We followed, pretty much to the letter, the Chief Electoral Officer's advice on this issue. Let's agree that 10% does leave a crack in the door. Quite frankly, I think the Chief Electoral Officer probably also struggled with this. That is, if you reduce it to zero, you may be unfairly or unduly excluding some quite legitimately and indisputably Canadian organizations from participating.

I think we can agree on the objective: We want to squeeze foreign funds out of this third party regime. We have a third party regime in terms of our elections and financing that I would say is already a model to the rest of the world and already quite stringent.

I want to finish by saying I'm open to this committee's consideration of that very matter, and I look forward to your advice on it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you for that, Minister.

You are right in terms of what the Chief Electoral Officer did recommend in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, but what I would put back to him and, I guess, to you is this: What is so prohibitive about requiring a third party such as a corporation or a union, or whatever that third party may be, to simply set up a separate bank account and solicit contributions from individual Canadians and PRs for the very specific purpose of engaging in regulated pre-election and election activities?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

The answer to that is I don't think that's.... It's a choice. Again, I think we probably agree on the end objective. This, in my view, is a detail on which I would be happy to be guided by this committee's judgment after you consider alternative measures.

I don't detect much difference between all parties on the end objective here, which is to squeeze foreign funding from third parties out of our election scenarios.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I take it from your answer that you're open to amendments. Is that correct?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I'm open to this committee's consideration of that matter, for sure.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

I would just say that I do think these loopholes need to be closed—to the extent that they exist, and I believe they do exist—because elections should be decided by Canadians free from foreign influence, including foreign funds. It has been a real problem. It's not just a hypothetical problem. It is a real problem that has been exploited at present by third parties.

On a different matter, this committee undertook a study on the malicious activities of the so-called longest ballot committee. We produced a unanimous report with recommendations to curtail the longest ballot committee or other malicious actors from weaponizing the ballot and disrupting the democratic process in future elections and by-elections. I'm pleased to see that most of the committee's recommendations are incorporated into Bill C-25.

One recommendation, however, that has not been incorporated into the bill is “That the Canada Elections Act be amended to provide for penalties when signatures are obtained on a nomination paper before a candidate has been identified.” There was evidence that the longest ballot committee may have, in some instances, induced electors to sign nomination forms on which the candidate's name was blank, only to fill in the candidate's name after the fact, upon recruiting one of their fake candidates.

The intent of the act is that a candidate must receive the endorsement of at least 100 electors in a riding to get onto the ballot. Signing a blank nomination form is clearly contrary to the spirit of the act, yet this type of mischief can occur without penalty. In my view, an amendment should be brought to close this loophole. What are your thoughts?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Be very brief, Mr. MacKinnon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Clauses 4 and 52 provide an offence if someone knowingly provides false information. Otherwise, that is a violation. I think we could probably circle around and compare notes on this because our view is that it would be addressed by these sections.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Perhaps you can tighten it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go to Mr. Jeneroux for six minutes, please.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us here today. I want to get right into one of the issues I see. Hopefully, you're able to address it.

I understand that the purpose of Bill C-25 is to update and further strengthen our existing elections laws. In that vein, I hope you can talk about the protections that already exist in the Canada Elections Act or that would be added under Bill C-25 that will protect Canadians from the issue that was recently brought to light in Alberta, where it appears a list of electors was shared online.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

From what I know about that issue, which is based on media reporting, it appears to be an extremely cavalier use of the Elections Act and what would constitute at the federal level under current law an extremely serious breach of the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. Voters lists are pretty sacred. That's why Parliament in its wisdom has decided to govern their management very carefully and provide for serious offences for breaches of those provisions.

In this bill, we significantly tighten up even further the privacy provisions that govern all political parties at the federal level. The Alberta incident is something all members should take extremely seriously. Provincial electoral lists aren't much different from federal electoral lists. It is up to elections authorities in all jurisdictions to make sure that the provisions governing the confidentiality of that information be held extremely tightly and, when they're not held extremely tightly, to deal with it in a very serious way.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Minister.

From what I understand, violating the law can result in a fine up to $10,000 and potentially one year in prison. Is that correct?

Can you tell us about the increase to the administrative monetary penalty amounts, why they were chosen and how they then compare to other jurisdictions across the country?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Offences at the federal level tend to be dealt with much more stringently. You will see the enforcement powers of the commissioner being enhanced in these amendments, including her ability to compel testimony—all, of course, in the spirit of giving her more latitude and ability to deal with these. They are, in some cases, administrative penalties. We want to give her some discretion around that.

Let me give you some examples of administrative monetary penalties.

In Alberta, in the Election Act, it can be up to $100,000—again, depending on the offence. It's up to $50,000 in British Columbia, $20,000 in Manitoba, and $10,000 for individuals and $100,000 for entities in Ontario. Those would be maximum administrative monetary penalties.

Under other federal pieces of legislation.... It's up to $1 million in the anti-spam legislation. In the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, it's up to $1 million for individuals. In the Competition Act, it's $750,000. You can see that the quantums are quite different.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

In my last couple of minutes, I want to shift gears a little.

Regarding the five-day advance notice for regulated fundraising events, can you explain why these changes are being proposed and give us examples of the types of problems that led to them?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Let's start with the premise, which, of course, applies to all political parties represented here and all others. Full disclosure must be given of a political donation. It must be done in a timely way, done by event and done in the most transparent way that we've witnessed, perhaps, in the world.

To go the additional step—which, I would argue, is a second reporting obligation—of publishing someone's home address on the Internet and leaving it there in perpetuity is inviting harassment. It would dissuade people from participating in the political process in ways that are obviously legitimate and dissuade them in ways we do not want to encourage in Canada. Publishing someone's address, whether it be—as these amendments foresee—that of election officials or people who are quite legitimately participating in the political process in other ways, would be, in this day and age, a risk we should not take.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go to Ms. Normandin.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Minister, thank you for being with us. Thank you also for your participation in the study. Your speech in the House and the fact that you stayed to listen to the speeches of other MPs were very well received.

I'd like to get back to the issue of regulated fundraising activities. The requirement for parties to provide a report five days before an event and after an event was introduced by the Liberal Party in 2018.

I'd like to start from the beginning. You may not have been involved in the decision-making process at the time, but do you know what led to the decision to introduce greater transparency into regulated fundraising activities, both before and after the event?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Of course, we are always looking for the purest expression of democracy, but we learn and adjust as we go. This time, we are relying on what came out of the public inquiry. What's more, the last time the act was reviewed was two elections ago, which means two reports and two sets of observations from the commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer have been issued.

The provisions in question are about transparency. In other words, it's still necessary to report fundraising events. The provisions ensure that the information is publicly available. It's very hard to report revenues prior to an event. As I just told the member for Edmonton, we felt that the requirement to publish a participant's registered or physical address posed an outright threat to their safety.

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

My questions will be along the same lines as Mr. Jeneroux's.

Regarding the post-event release of information, I understand not wanting to provide a specific address. However, without identifying them, have there been any reports of events that warranted this change, or is it just a preventative measure?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think there have been a few incidents where that was a possibility. An address was reportedly posted online. I'm not sure I can cite a specific event that was a cause for concern, but the possibility exists and, more importantly, so does the threat. The posting and reposting of information, addresses and such is certainly something we've seen online.

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

I understand the safety imperative that prompted the change to release the information after the event. I understand that the requirement is being amended, rather than repealed altogether. However, when it comes to releasing the information prior to the event, the section and requirement pertaining to the five days' notice is being removed altogether.

I'd like to go through the elements one by one and hear your comments on balancing transparency and the safety risk.

Under subsection 384.2(2) of the current Canada Elections Act, the date, time and location of the regulated fundraising event have to be published five days prior to the event.

Do you think publishing only the date and time, without specifying the location, will ensure both safety and transparency?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I just want to make sure I understand correctly.

You are asking whether it's possible to keep the requirement to publish the date and time of the event, omitting the location, and then, after the event, publish the contributions and names and such.

I'm open to discussing the idea. I don't know what more that would do from a transparency standpoint, in terms of informing the public about an event. All the relevant information is published after the fact in a timely manner.

It would be great if the committee were to look into what the outcome of that might be.

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

Similarly, providing the name of the entity for whose financial benefit the event is organized or the names of those who will be attending, prior to the event, often with five days' notice in the case of major events, gives some indication as to the list of attendees. The same goes for the total amount of contributions.

Doesn't it?