Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 26th, 2026

[Gerald Chipeur]

Then the independents would be listed separately, rotating, but the ballot would not, in effect, hide the political parties. You would put the political parties first on the ballot, and then all of the individual candidates would follow. You get only one vote: Either you vote for a party with a candidate name, or you go down the list to those who are not associated with a political party but have decided to run anyway.

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

Are there any changes being proposed in the current legislation where the intended consequences are obvious? My concern is that the unintended consequences would be more problematic. Is there anything or any change you would recommend to this committee, other than the ones you've already listed?

[Gerald Chipeur]

I think I've given you all of them. My biggest recommendation—something that has been highlighted over and over again in the two decisions by the court—is to pull the Chief Electoral Officer and commissioner out of any discretionary role. Their neutrality is protected by their carefully following a statutory provision. They need to be restricted to making those kinds of decisions and to applying the statute as written. They should not have discretion with respect to party policy on the issue of privacy. It just doesn't make any sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll now turn to Madam Kayabaga for five minutes, please.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our guests today, including Mr. Loewen.

Mr. Chipeur, regarding your concerns about criminal penalties for conveying false information, the threshold in the bill is intended to prevent the capture of personal opinions or parody and to moderate any potential charter concerns. With that in mind, can you comment on the threshold in Bill C-25 requiring a person to know that a statement is false, yet that person makes it with the goal of undermining trust?

[Gerald Chipeur]

The problem I have with proposed section 482.01 is not that we shouldn't have some rules. My concern is with just one area, namely that part 20 gives the right to challenge the stated results. In my view, giving the commissioner the option to charge creates a high standard of proof for the individual, particularly if it turns out that what they said was not true. Someone may have reported to them, and they shouldn't have relied on that report, yet they went forward. It's just the problem of having to defend oneself for no good reason.

There's no good reason to stop someone from commenting on the results of an election; it just won't impact the election. Therefore, let's not create an administrative burden for no purpose.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I think many people who have commented on this specific issue would have a divergent view on that, because the goal is to keep Canadians' trust and to make sure that no false statements are made about candidates and there is no interference in that regard.

I do want to go to another question.

[Gerald Chipeur]

By the way—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I'm sorry. Because of the time, I want to get to my next question.

With respect to the concern you have raised around third parties using their own funds, there are still reporting requirements for third parties with respect to the source of the funds. Reducing the 10% threshold would prevent third parties from using their own funds to pay for regulated fundraising activities, even if the funds are generated entirely in Canada and by Canadians. It would also prevent them from engaging in regulated fundraising activities and, consequently, from exercising their charter rights to freedom of expression under section 2(b) and freedom of association under subsection 2(d), and the right to vote under section 3.

As I'm sure you are aware, Canadian courts have a history of scrutinizing restrictions on third party participation in elections, as illustrated in, for example, Harper v. Canada from 2004, regarding spending limits, and Ontario v. Working Families Coalition in 2025, regarding limits to political advertising outside of the election period.

Although Bill C-25 takes many important steps to close channels for dark and foreign funding, it also strikes an important balance to ensure that Canadians' charter rights are respected. I'm hoping you can speak to the importance of protecting Canadian charter rights.

[Gerald Chipeur]

Absolutely. One of those rights is equality. Certainly, using 10% is just not equal. If you wanted to use $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 and say, “That's the limit that can be given by a third party organization that is not using some bank account where individuals deposit money,” I'm all for it, because then it would apply to everyone equally. When you have such a diversity of third parties, 10% is certainly not equal.

My view is that's a limitation on the freedom of expression that is simply not justified in a free and democratic society.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Ms. Gaumond, you talked about improving digital political participation.

In 25 seconds, what could you suggest in that regard?

[Eve Gaumond]

The registry of political ads should be expanded to include more information. In particular, there should be an Elections Canada registration number, information about targeted advertising and the audience information that was used in the targeted ad.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Madame Normandin, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Loewen, you talked about the importance of names that reference the geography of ridings. You talked briefly about the historical names that we see in some ridings.

Can you speak to the fact that a historical name can in some cases also be related to the geography of an area, such as when a person has founded a city?

Should we also consider key historical figures who had an impact on the geography of certain ridings?

[Peter Loewen]

I think there's a whole series of processes that places are going through right now to change names and remove people's names from things. For example, my old hometown of Toronto is going through this with Dundas Street and other things. It's an interesting exercise.

The point more generally is that when we add names to things, rather than take them away, we add to our history. We've spent a lot of time in the last number of years thinking that we could cleanse ourselves of things that have gone wrong in the past by removing names, rather than just coming to terms with what happened when it happened.

For the commissioners in this case, the belief was that by representing the important historical and contemporary indigenous communities that are involved with some ridings and that have the right to be represented in Parliament, it was a positive way of recognizing Canada's indigenous history and indigenous present, rather than the less helpful exercise of simply removing people from things, thinking that it will somehow change the past, when it doesn't change the past or the future.

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

Thank you, Mr. Loewen.

Ms. Gaumond, as to the transparency of political parties' online activities, can you tell us briefly what is being done currently as a result of the elections act?

Is there real transparency or is that also among the main weaknesses of the bill?

[Eve Gaumond]

That is not necessarily among the main weaknesses because it is not addressed in Bill C‑25. Since Bill C‑76, we have had the registry, which could be expanded. Bill C-76 was enacted in 2018. It is now 2026. I think we need to work with researchers in the social sciences to really understand their needs. The next step would be the legislation. It has to be codified so everyone is included in the law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much.

Given the time, I'm going to be cruel. I'm going to allow only four minutes for each member, because we're going to have to suspend.

I apologize for my cruelty, Mr. Jackson. Please proceed.

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

We're two weeks apart, Mr. Chair. I thought you'd be in a better mood. Oh dear.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

At any rate, thank you to the witnesses for being here. I sincerely appreciate your testimony today.

Mr. Chipeur, I'd like to pick up on the second point you mentioned in your opening statement. It was about the lack of judicial review for the commissioner in certain of their new powers coming forward in this piece. Could you elaborate a little on what some of the unintended consequences of that may be for individuals in Canada should this come into effect as it currently sits in the bill?

[Gerald Chipeur]

The problem is that the decision in Longley, which is an Ontario Court of Appeal decision, said, “Care should be taken to ensure...the impartiality of this critical public role”. That's the role of the Chief Electoral Officer—and the commissioner, we can add.

If an individual who is intended to be neutral becomes the prosecutor, then we have a situation where there will be a perception that the party is not neutral. The way to bring back a perception of neutrality—the commissioner does at times have to prosecute—is to put judicial review of that decision so that there can be better or more confidence in the decision, a very powerful decision. If it were done in the criminal area, it would be absolutely unconstitutional, but because it's administrative law, the Supreme Court has allowed this kind of law to be in place.

In my view, it should not be in place in election laws because of the important neutral position that the commissioner and CEO must play. The Court of Appeal has effectively said that's mandated. My recommendation is that this committee recommend that the rule in proposed section 510.01 apply everywhere. Always require a judicial oversight. You have to ask the judge, with an affidavit where the commissioner says, “I have evidence that leads me to want to ask questions of this individual. I want to have permission to do that.”

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

You don't see there being any challenge in that being an overly burdensome requirement to have in place.

[Gerald Chipeur]

No. It's what happens every day when the police deal with everything from drunk driving to theft to possession of stolen goods. It is a normal part of everyday policing.

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

Okay. Very good.

We discussed briefly the questioning of an election result. Do you have any examples of somewhere where someone has knowingly questioned an election result? I'm just wondering whether we're creating a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist here.