Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the committee is meeting to continue its study of Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact an act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026.

Today's meeting is taking place in public in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using Zoom. Before I continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table in front of them. It's to help prevent audio feedback incidents, for the health and safety of everyone here, especially our interpreters.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. If you wish to speak, raise your hand here or on Zoom, please.

I'd like to welcome back our witnesses for today's first panel. From the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, we have Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer; and Trevor Knight, general counsel. From the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, we have Caroline Simard, commissioner; Michael Bisson, deputy commissioner, operations; and Chantal Richard, executive director and senior general counsel.

The CEO and the commissioner each have five minutes.

The floor is yours, Monsieur Perrault.

[Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about Bill C‑25.

The bill introduces a number of changes to reinforce the security and integrity of the electoral process in response to foreign interference and other emerging threats.

From the outset, I want to express my general support for this bill. However, as Chief Electoral Officer, it is my role to inform the committee of areas where the bill could be improved.

For the most part, Bill C‑25 reflects recommendations that I made in my 2024 report, “Protecting Against Threats to the Electoral Process”, which came about in the context of the Foreign Interference Commission as well as the work of this committee.

This includes changes to prevent foreign funding of third parties, rules to prevent the use of non-traceable instruments for making contributions, as well as the expansion of a number of offences, such as bribery and intimidation, related to nomination and leadership contests. It also extends the application of the rules against undue influence by foreigners beyond the electoral period and includes nomination and leadership contests.

Bill C‑25 adds new rules and improves existing ones to protect the information environment. In particular, it includes measures that will help address the growing problem of deepfakes that can be used to mislead electors, something for which I have strongly advocated.

It also introduces changes to address problems related to unduly long ballots, which are also aligned with recommendations I made to the minister and to this committee. I would note that the rule against electors signing multiple nomination papers is carefully crafted to ensure that a candidate's nomination will not be jeopardized because a person may also have signed someone else's nomination.

Mr. Chair, while I applaud the changes proposed in this bill, I also believe there are areas where it can be improved or should go further.

I am particularly concerned about changes in the information environment and their impact on our electoral democracy. The foreign interference commission report stated that disinformation is the biggest threat to our democracy, and I share that view.

Bill C-25 proposes an offence for publishing information about the electoral process that the person knows to be false with the goal of interfering with the vote. I note that there already exist prohibitions to a similar effect in the Canada Elections Act that have been used successfully to prosecute offenders.

What is not addressed by this bill is a situation where inaccurate information about the electoral process is published with the goal of undermining trust in the election or its results—for example, altered videos purporting to show stolen or destroyed ballots. Such behaviour supporting false claims that an election may have been stolen has nothing to do with criticism of the process or criticism of its administration. The standard for such an offence should be high, as I have proposed. I believe that a line must be drawn to protect our democracy against deliberate acts of destabilization.

In contrast, criticism of the process or of its administration is a normal part of democratic debate and should be tolerated, even though its premise may be factually false or even if it is made by conveying falsehoods. It is fundamentally distinct from attempts to overturn an election or undermine its results through the deliberate publication of false narratives.

I would also like to see a requirement for transparency markers whenever electoral communications involve synthetic content generated using artificial intelligence. While there are perfectly valid reasons for the use of such content, the potential for deception is such that electors should be informed of its use.

I note that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recently made a recommendation requiring that all fully synthetic or AI-generated content be clearly identified as such through standardized labelling mechanisms that are visible and understandable to the public.

Mr. Chair, given the time constraints, I have shared with the committee a table that includes these and other suggested improvements, which I would be happy to discuss. These concern only issues that are directly addressed in the bill, and not other recommendations found in my November 2024 report.

I would also like to offer the availability of my officials as the committee reviews the bill. This is a customary practice that I believe members have found to be useful in the past.

Thank you for inviting me today. I would be happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Madame Simard.

[Caroline Simard, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before you today.

I'm joined by Mike Bisson, deputy commissioner, operations, and Chantal Richard, executive director and senior general counsel.

Bill C‑25 proposes significant changes that will directly affect my office and the investigations we undertake. It grants important new investigative tools and powers that are essential to fulfilling our mandate effectively. Overall, the bill closes several key compliance and enforcement gaps in the Canada Elections Act and strengthens the existing enforcement framework.

I would, however, like to highlight a few areas where the bill could be improved.

First, regarding the privacy regime for political parties, a single set of rules set out directly in the act and applicable to all parties should be adopted, rather than having to enforce multiple party-specific policies. This would ensure consistency among political parties and a unified approach to enforcement.

The documents held by political parties, candidates and electoral district associations should also be subject to a mandatory retention period and should be provided to my office upon request. Otherwise, we may face challenges getting the evidence to conduct our investigations. In addition, political parties should be required to report privacy breaches to my office so I may decide to launch investigations if circumstances warrant it.

Second, I would like to raise a concern regarding the proposed option to destroy crypto contributions. This could result in the loss of important evidence and impede investigations. It would be preferable to remove this option and instead require that such contributions be returned unused or converted to money and returned to the receiver general.

My office has long relied on the act's well-established penal regime, which remains a critical enforcement tool. While the AMP regime is comparatively recent and still evolving, Bill C-25 makes a meaningful contribution to its continued maturation. These changes will support stronger compliance outcomes by providing my office with greater agility. We will indeed have improved access to timely information and the ability to act across a broader range of circumstances both during and outside pre-election and election periods. This is important, given that issues such as foreign interference and disinformation may occur at any time.

Taken together, Bill C-25 represents a meaningful expansion of my office's mandate and further solidifies Canada's position as a world leader in electoral compliance and enforcement. We will continue to ensure that we have the people, expertise and processes in place to implement any new powers.

I would be pleased to answer the committee's questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll go to Mr. Cooper first, for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Perrault.

The government incorporated in this bill your recommendations around amendments to the Canada Elections Act to require third parties to use funds exclusively from individual Canadian contributors for regulated pre-election and election activities, subject to an exception where they could still use their own funds provided the contributions to the third party in the year prior to the pre-election period were 10% or less of the third party's revenue.

For third parties where this exception would apply, would they be bound by the same requirements as third parties not captured by the exception with respect to contributions, specifically to the extent that a third party subject to the exception used contributions for regulated activities? Would those contributions only be allowed to come from individual Canadians?

[Stéphane Perrault]

They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds. In the law, they're not allowed to use foreign funds to conduct or support regulated activities. Of course, in practice, there may be some commingling of funds where it's difficult to determine where the money comes from.

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

For example, if in the year prior to the previous year there was a foreign contribution to the third party, those funds would effectively be melded and treated as part of the revenue of the third party. Is that accurate?

[Stéphane Perrault]

In principle, they should not use foreign funds. The same is true of individuals who are not caught by the requirement of a separate fundraising source. They may have revenue from different sources, and so the practical challenge is true there as well.

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

The practical challenge is that monies could be funnelled or directed to third parties, just as they can be today. For third parties subject to the exception, the same loopholes would exist.

[Stéphane Perrault]

It would be a contravention of the act. It's a practical issue.

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

It already is a contravention of the act.

[Stéphane Perrault]

There would be improvements to those rules. Right now, third parties cannot use foreign funds, but there would be an additional fence against foreign funders making contributions. There would be improvements to the regime. It is an issue of practice.

Now, I understand your concern. When I made my recommendation, which I continue to favour.... I'm cognizant of the fact that this is not a fully closed regime. There are opportunities. The reason for that is that I am mindful of the need for a balance to—

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

I understand and respect your position on that, but I'm trying to get my head around what, exactly, this regime would look like.

When I asked the question of the officials, I was told that there would be no transparency gap, that all contributions would be treated like the contributions of individual Canadians and that third parties subject to the exception would have to report those contributions the same way all other third party entities do.

[Stéphane Perrault]

That is correct. If a contribution were made, it would have to be treated as such and be subject to the contribution rules.

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

My question goes back to monies donated to a third party in years prior to the previous year.

Would they be captured as contributions?

[Stéphane Perrault]

They would be. However, in practice, for a point in time before an election, there would be no mechanism to ensure that they are set aside separately and tracked separately. They would be captured by the law as a contribution.

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

In short, there would remain loopholes that allow for the possibility of foreign monies to be commingled and used for regulated activities by these third parties subject to the exception.

[Stéphane Perrault]

The opportunities for funds to flow would exist, and they'd exist for a reason, which I think is—

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

They exist right now.

[Stéphane Perrault]

They exist right now, but in the proposed regime—

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

They will continue to exist if this bill is adopted in its present form, unamended.

[Stéphane Perrault]

They'd exist to a much lesser extent. To me, it would be a significant improvement.

This is a regime that would keep in mind the importance of balancing the rights and freedoms of—

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

I fully agree that it would be an improvement.

My ultimate position is that elections should be decided by Canadians, free of interference and foreign influence. When there's the possibility of funds being mingled and directed to third parties, I think that's a problem or an issue that needs to be carefully explored.

I asked you about contributions, but what about issues around revenue? There is nothing in the bill, as I see it, that would prevent a source of funds, in a non-contribution revenue context, from being free to.... Those funds could be foreign and used for regulated activities. Is that right?

[Stéphane Perrault]

It is, in the same way ordinary Canadians may have investments abroad—through their pension fund, for example. A retired teacher may receive a pension from—