Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Not always.

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

Not always, but when $1,500-a-plate fundraisers attended by major donors are held, you generally know the amount beforehand.

Would keeping that information still achieve that balance between safety and transparency, in your view, since it isn't information that could identify anyone?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I think we've found the balance with the timely publication of the information after the event. Keep in mind, however, that not that long ago—I'm old enough to remember a number of times when electoral financing was reformed—there were basically no limits on union and corporate contributions under the campaign finance rules.

I think the way in which the Canada Elections Act, as passed, was implemented, specifically to exclude all entities, other than individuals, to reduce the limits and to factor in inflation—that too is being removed at the discretionary level—was the ultimate choice to ensure transparency. Of course, contributions are published and contributors have to comply with the act.

In comparison with other countries, we have the most transparent and stringent political financing system possible. Stephen Harper even did away with the financing of political parties. This resulted in a somewhat purer system, in the sense that, for financing, political entities have to turn to individuals—individuals who can choose what to do with their money—and have to adhere to fairly restrictive limits. If you compare that with anonymous contributions from foreign corporations, which are common in other countries I won't name, I would say Canada is a model on this front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

With the next round—looking at the time—rather than having mini-rounds at the end, I'm going to add a minute to everyone's time, which should take us to about one o'clock. We'll see how it goes from there.

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

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for joining us at committee today.

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck down the section of the Canada Elections Act that required candidates put up a $1,000 deposit to run in an election. It was that decision that opened the door to the disruptive activities of the longest ballot committee, because now, if you have a frivolous candidate, that candidate doesn't have to put up $1,000.

I couldn't help noticing, Minister, that in 2017 your government chose not to appeal that particular decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench to the Supreme Court. With the benefit of hindsight, Mr. Minister, is it fair to say that your government should have appealed that decision all the way to the Supreme Court?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

It's hard to engage in counterfactuals on decisions that would have been based in law on advice by the Attorney General in a government that I wasn't part of, in the sense that I was not a minister at that time. However, I do think that the measures we have taken here, the measures that you and other members of the committee participated in sending the government in terms of dealing with this abuse—that is what it is and we must call it that—of the electoral process, will prove to be very effective in dealing with the issue.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

All right.

Minister, I am perhaps a bit more pessimistic than you are in terms of the activities of the longest ballot committee. In last month's by-election in Terrebonne, it's worth noting that all of the longest ballot committee candidates did have a unique official agent, so they are already complying with one of the changes in this bill. I believe that there were 47 candidates on the ballot in that by-election, and Elections Canada did have to go with the write-in ballot process.

If the longest ballot committee continues to cause these problems, do you think your government may revisit the idea of a deposit of perhaps a smaller amount that would not violate charter rights in section 3 of the charter?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Inasmuch as there are now two notable recommendations—among I believe the seven you made—that they will have to be compliant with, I do think that time will tell. We believe, nonetheless, that it will have a dissuasive effect and, taken together, all seven, hopefully, even more so.

I really don't want to be in the position of second-guessing a decision that would have been made on a factual and a legal assessment led by the Attorney General of the day, but I do think, to be perhaps a bit more precise, that this longest ballot business is incredibly frustrating to voters and has a dissuasive effect on voters. I think all of us should be properly preoccupied with that.

I don't like it when the target is a Conservative or a Bloc MP any more than I like it when the target is a Liberal, and I think we have a common reason to make sure we protect democracy by eliminating this abuse of it.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay. That's very good.

I appreciate that in your opening statement you mentioned the report from this committee to counter some of the disruptive activities of the longest ballot committee. One of the recommendations in that particular report was for the signature forms themselves to explicitly say, at the top of the form, that it is against the law to sign more than one candidate's nomination papers. I did not see that particular change incorporated into the legislation, but I would assume that it could be done by regulation or by administrative matters at Elections Canada.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes. We believe the Chief Electoral Officer has all the authority he would need to put appropriate language at the top of one of those forms.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Will you be directing the Chief Electoral Officer to do that?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I don't direct the Chief Electoral Officer to do anything, sir.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

Do you expect that result will happen in the near future?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I expect that you could probably write to him and suggest that it might be something he wants to consider. It would probably be better coming from you than it would be coming from me.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Perhaps the entire committee could hop on that bandwagon.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I know the Chief Electoral Officer has a consultative committee. At least, he did when I was the national director of my party. That would be an interesting thing, I'm sure, for party officials to raise with him at the appropriate time.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Very good.

I have 30 seconds left. I will touch briefly on the idea of the name changes in the act.

As we know, every 10 years, there's a boundaries commission that changes the boundaries and possibly changes the names. It's not lost on me that if it weren't for the longest ballot committee and foreign interference, we would need a stand-alone act going through Parliament just to change the names of these ridings.

Can you opine on a more efficient way to deal with riding name changes than an act of Parliament?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We thought we were adopting an efficient mechanism here to do that, which was harvesting all of the suggestions from individual members of Parliament and not questioning them. We assume those members of Parliament have done the appropriate consultations in their ridings. If not, woe betide them for making a suggestion that is contrary to their constituents' wishes.

We took all of those names textually and created a separate section, as you know, to deal with them. It's certainly more efficient than dealing with 17 private members' bills.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Mrs. Brière, you may go ahead for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here, along with your officials. Thank you as well for your work on this important bill.

We know that the world in 2026 is a very different place from what it was even just a few years, if not months, ago. As parliamentarians, we see the importance of ensuring that our democratic system is effective and protected, on one hand, and keeping up with the times, on the other. The Canada Elections Act is globally recognized for its robust procedures, strong political financing system and strict spending limits. Nevertheless, Canada is not immune to the growing threats facing the system or, above all, the erosion of public trust.

I'd like you to talk about how Bill C‑25 deals with interference, particularly how it adds an extraterritorial application to certain offences, making it possible to investigate threat actors operating outside Canada.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

It's a battle that is very current, so your question is quite relevant.

The areas or issues exposed by the Foreign Interference Commission were the motivation for the legislative and administrative changes we made to rectify the situation. I know that Elections Canada provides oversight. I want to highlight two other measures we announced when the bill was introduced, to monitor foreign interference, misinformation and disinformation.

The Government of Canada now has enhanced capacity in that area. We have the cabinet directive on election monitoring and the publication of incident reports. That has worked quite well. The updated system seems to have been very effective during the last election campaign.

This is about addressing misinformation, deepfakes and the malicious spreading of false information in relation to an election, among other things. Obviously, in no way did we want to capture parody, satire or comments made in good faith, meaning for the purposes of expressing an opinion by voting. However, people or entities who share or spread information they know to be false will be dealt with harshly under the provisions of this bill.

Earlier, we talked about the provisions pertaining to third-party contributions. While that funding is strictly regulated in Canada, these provisions will eliminate, or nearly eliminate, the potential for foreign funding to enter our electoral processes. They will prevent political parties from using cryptocurrency, gift cards, prepaid cards and more.

There are numerous measures, all recommended by either Elections Canada or election authorities, or the Foreign Interference Commission. I think we've put together a suite of measures that address all of those recommendations in a timely and comprehensive way. At least, that's my hope.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you very much.

How does the extraterritorial application work? How will we be able to go after actors operating outside Canada?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

We're going to work with international law enforcement authorities. We are expanding the scope of certain provisions, while giving the commissioner broader powers when it comes to international information sharing. She will be able to request or provide information in order to obtain the information she needs for the purposes of an investigation into an offence or suspicious activity. She will have the same powers or tools as a police agency has for criminal investigations.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that it was important to you to have consensus on the bill.

Can you tell us why it was so important to you?

Are you satisfied with the consensus that was reached?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you for your question.

I take protecting our institutions very seriously. Especially today, I think it is in all of our interests to agree on the ground rules at least. We see the debates, decisions and court rulings undermining democratic participation in other democracies. I think the fact that Canada is always looking for the purest expression of democracy by passing corresponding legislation is something we should be proud of.

Everyone at this meeting and in the House of Commons should also be very proud that we are able to agree on the ground rules and to show our constituents that. To me, Mrs. Brière, there is no better example we can set for citizens or the world than coming together as political parties to agree on the rules and the legitimacy of our democratic processes.