Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

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

Okay. I would appreciate that very much.

I think these entities or foreign actors are planning well in advance. They know, especially now that we're in a majority, when the election theoretically would be. Planning out a time plan is not hard for them to do if they're going to make a contribution to try to influence a Canadian election.

In terms of the reporting requirements for entities, you commented on how, if contributions are coming through, books of a third party would have to be categorized separately. Is that a new requirement? What does that look like in terms of the accounting practices for third parties and the change it will require for them if this bill becomes law?

[Rachel Pereira]

They will need to demonstrate that the revenues are their own. Not all third parties might have the same infrastructure or the same type of accounting and financial statements that other third parties might. There's a bit of flexibility in terms of.... In the act, it would be a statement in line with common accounting principles. They would need to provide that in order to demonstrate the source of those funds. Yes, it is a new requirement because the threshold is a new requirement.

I would just add, in terms of why the requirement is here, why the 10% threshold.... As was noted earlier, the Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged, in his 2022 recommendations report, a couple of approaches to get at the transparency gap that we're talking about. One of them was to have a more restrictive regime where third parties could only use contributions from Canadians and permanent residents. He noted the potentially significant charter risks with that, given that third parties also generate legitimate funds in Canada, Canadian funds. It would have raised some charter questions, which is why he proposed the approach that is reflected in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have five minutes, please.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, officials, to the committee today. Thank you for the work that you've done on this bill. This is a bill that has had a lot of consultation. You did provide an opportunity for all members to ask questions in the technical briefing. I really appreciate that.

I want to ask some questions around some of the current gaps in our Canada Elections Act that you think Bill C-25 is going to close and around what risk you view would remain if we don't act.

As well, based on your experience, have the recent incidents, including the Alberta case, exposed vulnerabilities in our act in how elector information is accessed or shared?

[Cathy Hawara]

One of the gaps that we and others had noted was the fact that most of the protections, which are very strong protections for our electoral system, were really only in place for the duration of an election. This is one of the recommendations that was made in the context of the public inquiry on foreign interference. It was that this kind of protection against, for example, foreign influence of voters or misleading publications, etc., really needed to be in place at all times. This is one of the gaps that we're closing with the measures that are in this bill. We know that, as was mentioned, threats to our electoral system don't just happen during the electoral period, so this is quite important.

In terms of the privacy of information and, in particular, voter lists, we did take note of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation that there was a vulnerability with respect to the preliminary list of electors, so the bill targets a measure there as well, which we've already discussed, with respect to ensuring that the list in particular does not fall into the hands of an entity that does not intend to endorse a candidate but is looking for access to personal information. Those are some of the examples of the gaps that the bill proposes to close.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I have a question around the enforcement that the bill provides. In practical terms, how would enforcement work when a violation occurs, for example? I want to also touch on the scenario where the new administrative monetary penalties would change behaviour. How does that change behaviour compared to current regimes?

If we kept the status quo, what would that look like versus the new steps that we're taking?

[Cathy Hawara]

There are a number of important measures that are included in the bill to strengthen enforcement of compliance on the part of the commissioner of Canada elections, and this is also a response to the recommendations that she herself made in 2022.

There are a couple of examples I can point to at the moment. If she is conducting an administrative investigation, she cannot compel an individual to co-operate with her investigators by attending an interview, providing information or producing documents. If they don't co-operate, she must go to court, which, of course, is more onerous and is an inefficient way of dealing, as swiftly as possible, with the enforcement of the act. Therefore, we are proposing new authorities for the commissioner that are very much in line with authorities that are available to similarly placed commissioners.

With respect to the administrative monetary penalty, we are proposing to increase it. At the moment, the maximum penalty for individuals is $1,000, and that would go up to $25,000 and, for entities, the current maximum is $5,000, and it would go up to $100,000. Of course, the objective there is a deterrent effect, and it would be more in line with some of the regimes that we find in some provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

What we'll do next is go through another short round. We'll do three minutes with the Conservatives, three minutes with the Liberals and two minutes with the Bloc. We'll then suspend for a few minutes so we can have the full hour with the minister.

Mr. Jackson, go ahead for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks again to the witnesses. We appreciate your taking a couple of those questions away and getting back to us with clarification on how that applies to a four-year election cycle. I think that's important for committee members to understand as we're considering this bill.

As Mr. Cooper said, we're generally supportive of a number of the provisions that came forward in this piece of legislation. I'm just looking for clarity on a couple of those items.

I want to follow up specifically on the monetary penalties. I'm wondering—I apologize if I missed this already—how you arrived at the proposed new $100,000 monetary penalty for entities in the bill.

[Rachel Pereira]

Thank you for the question.

We've looked at a couple of different examples, one being comparable provincial and territorial election laws. We also looked at other federal pieces of legislation where there are administrative monetary penalty regimes in place, knowing that the CEO and the CCE have noted that the current maximum amounts of $1,500 and $5,000 for individuals and entities are very low and do not help compliance or serve as effective deterrents.

I can give some examples of how this aligns. The new maximums align with the other provinces—

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

Sure. Maybe you could provide those to the committee after the fact. You probably don't have to read them into the record. I would appreciate that.

You mentioned earlier in your testimony that the Chief Electoral Officer provided feedback that going to an allowance of zero foreign contributions would potentially, I think you said, result in a charter challenge.

I'm curious for a little context around that. It surprises me that somehow the charter may come into effect with relation to foreign contributions. Did I understand that wrong? Please clarify that. Thank you.

[Rachel Pereira]

Thank you. I may not have articulated it clearly.

Just to be clear, the option is to limit third parties in Canada from using their own funds at all in regulated activities. Legitimate Canadian company-generated funds in Canada could be seen as limiting freedom of expression, and that may be too restrictive. That was the consideration around that approach.

Certainly, a more restrictive regime would limit circumventing other funds from coming into.... In other words, limiting it only to Canadian contributions by Canadian citizens and permanent residents would be quite restrictive, so the consideration was around limiting Canadian third party legitimate funds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go to Ms. Vandenbeld, please, for three minutes.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here and answering our questions. I'd like to pick up on the question that Mr. Jackson asked about the administrative monetary penalties.

I'm back on this committee after a nine-year gap. A decade ago, the Chief Electoral Officer was at this committee asking for additional monetary penalties. In addition to what you just outlined, the reason was that there's a really big gap between a criminal threshold and $5,000. There were a number of things that, if they were penalties, might have been pursued, but they didn't really warrant going the criminal route.

Is this also a way we can address those issues that wouldn't go before the courts but were bad enough that they should warrant a high fine?

[Cathy Hawara]

I think that's right.

In fact, what we're also doing is expanding the number of contraventions of the act that can be dealt with through the administrative monetary penalty regime to give the commissioner greater flexibility to deal with things that need to be dealt with—but not through the criminal process.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I also noticed that Bill C-25 talks about cryptocurrency and gift cards and making sure these can't be used. I would have assumed that was already the case. We have such a strict regime that it comes as a surprise to most of us that cryptocurrency donations and such would even be allowed.

Is this something new?

[Cathy Hawara]

It is new. Parliament will be introducing that prohibition in the Canada Elections Act for the first time. It is meant to respond to the fact that these are difficult to trace and can be a conduit for foreign or dark money coming into the system. A robust system will become even more robust.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

These sound like some very important changes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

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

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

Thank you very much.

Several of the changes relate to candidates for party nominations or leadership contests. The definitions often include potential candidates. I imagine that the parties have established procedures for nominations. It may be less clear who is officially a candidate for nomination.

I would like your comments on how we can easily determine, in the future, who is a potential candidate when considering offences. This concept seems rather subjective to me.

Has this issue already been considered?

[Rachel Pereira]

“Potential candidate” is already defined in the act. I don't have it in front of me—I'm sorry—but on the changes you're referring to, where there are new protections for nomination and leadership contestants or contests, certain measures are not being limited to the election period. The limitation on during the election period would be removed. Consequently, that would include potential candidates and eligible parties. The actors who operate outside of an election also would be captured.

Those consequential amendments to those provisions are to ensure that all the actors who operate, not just during an election, would be captured. They are prohibited at all times.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll suspend for five minutes and come back with the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Welcome back.

I'd like to welcome our second panel. I see a couple of familiar faces and a new one.

I'd like welcome the Honourable Steven MacKinnon, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

For your opening statement, you have five minutes, sir.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, I'm very pleased to appear before you today to talk about Bill C‑25, the strong and free elections act.

As you know, the Canada Elections Act is the cornerstone of our electoral system. It ensures that elections are free, fair, independent and secure. Its strength lies in regular updates and improvements, which take into account new threats, expert recommendations and lessons learned.

Through the strong and free elections act, the government has introduced targeted priority updates to strengthen and protect Canada's federal elections. It draws on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner of Canada elections and, in a more timely way, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. It is the product of consultations and collaborations with members of Parliament from all parties, because I strongly believe that changes to the regime that governs how elections are conducted should be based on consensus as much as possible.

Moreover, I am pleased to share that all of the legislative recommendations from this committee's study on unduly long ballots have been incorporated into the bill.

Bill C‑25 comprises two parts.

The first part includes amendments to the Canada Elections Act in five key areas: safeguarding elections as well as nomination processes and leadership contests; strengthening the political financing regime; facilitating the enforcement of the act; the protection of personal information; and combatting excessively long ballots.

Part 2 of the bill provides for the renaming of 19 electoral districts, in accordance with proposals from the current members of Parliament for those districts.

I'll try to be relatively brief, but I'd still like to outline the main measures in Part 1.

First, the bill will extend the key prohibitions relating to federal elections—particularly those concerning undue foreign influence, corruption and misleading publications—so that they apply at all times. This is necessary because the threats to elections are not limited to the election period.

For the first time, the bill extends these key protections to nomination and leadership contests, among other things, which, as we all know, are important democratic processes that contribute to elections.

The protections for elections and contests will apply both within and outside Canada, in line with the recommendations of the Foreign Interference Commission.

We also know that deepfake technology and disinformation pose increasing challenges to our democracy. That is why Bill C-25 will prohibit manipulating the voice or image of trusted electoral actors with the intent to mislead voters. It will also ban the intentional spread of false information regarding voting or the voting process with the intent to affect the conduct or results of an election.

Let me be clear: These amendments will not prohibit parody or satire or statements made in good faith. They do not target personal political opinions. Instead, they will capture intentional efforts by malicious actors who spread false information to undermine trust in elections.

To increase transparency over political financing, Bill C-25 will prohibit political entities from accepting untraceable contributions such as cryptocurrencies, gift cards or money orders. This will also apply to third parties for regulated activities. The bill requires third parties to use contributions from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated activities while permitting those who wish to use their own funds to do so if they meet certain conditions.

Furthermore, this bill will enable the commissioner of Canada elections to carry out her enforcement mandate. The commissioner will be able to conduct more effective administrative investigations by using tools similar to those available to other federal commissioners to obtain the necessary information, and will be able to enter into information-sharing agreements, both within Canada and internationally. She will also have the power to impose higher administrative monetary penalties where warranted.

Bill C‑25 will also strengthen privacy policy requirements for federal political parties by including new requirements, such as the obligation to implement physical, organizational and technological security measures; the obligation to take appropriate action in the event of a data breach; and a ban on selling personal information.

Finally, to address the issues caused by unduly long ballots, Bill C-25 will limit voters to signing only one nomination form, require election officials to represent only one candidate per district and prohibit false or misleading information on nomination forms, among other measures, to deter those who do not genuinely seek to represent voters in Parliament.

I would like to sincerely thank this committee for your study of the actions of the longest ballot committee in federal elections, as well as your comprehensive recommendations. I am pleased to share that the seven legislative recommendations you made are included in this bill.

As I said at the outset, I strongly believe that changes to the Canada Elections Act should be based on consensus as much as possible. In that vein, I look forward to answering all the questions this committee may have on these measures to ensure our democracy remains, as it is, one of the strongest in the world.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacKinnon.

Before we go to questions, I'd like to remind members to be careful with the microphones when they're on. The other thing is that I know sometimes these discussions can get contentious and speaking over each other becomes an issue. For the benefit of our interpreters, I'm not saying don't be passionate, but do keep in mind the interpreters when you are talking over each other.

We'll start it off with Mr. Cooper for six minutes.