Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 35 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

Today's meeting is taking place in public in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Before I continue, I'd ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio feedback incidents and protect the health and safety of all participants, especially our interpreters.

I'd like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select in advance the listening channel you need, in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

I'd like to make a few comments. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, use the “raise hand” function. We will do our best to manage the speaking order.

I would like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

This is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package that each member received from the clerk. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which parties submitted them. During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause altogether from the bill, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes—it's not to propose an amendment to delete it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title of the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as any indication of deleted clauses.

I thank members in advance for their attention, and I wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause. Please have patience in your chair. This is the first time I'm doing it from the front of the room. I've done it many times from the side of the room. I expect we will all get through this.

I'd like to welcome the officials who are joining us here today. From the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, we have Karolyn Savard, general counsel and senior director, legal services, and Trevor Knight, general counsel, legal services.

From the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, we have Chantal Richard, executive director and senior general counsel, legal services, and Jean-Michel Kalubiaka, senior counsel and director, legal services.

From the Privy Council Office, we have Rachel Pereira, director, democratic institutions.

We will proceed.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. The chair calls clause 2.

(Clause 2 agreed to)

There is a proposed new clause 2.1, from the Parti vert.

Ms. May, would you like to introduce it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I need to put on the record that, on every occasion, I appear under the format of motions that are identical and that are passed by every committee immediately following every election. They were originally designed by the Prime Minister's office under Stephen Harper to deprive me of rights I would otherwise have to present substantive amendments at report stage. I apologize for taking a moment to explain that I'm here under rules the committee passed that make a mockery of the notion that the committee is the master of its own process, since miraculously identical motions were passed at the same time by all committees simultaneously, depriving me of rights that I have.

In this case, Mr. Chair, the amendments I'm bringing forward are exactly what was in Bill C-65, which died on the Order Paper on January 6, 2025. At one point, at least, the government approved the suggestions being made through Elections Canada. In testimony before this committee in relation to Bill C-25, I put a question to the Chief Electoral Officer about the recommendations that were previously made, and about the support of Elections Canada for changes that were previously made. I'm not a witness, so I won't say what specific impact it had on my party in the last election, but Bill C-65 and its changes died on the Order Paper.

Amendment PV-1 is very straightforward. It's saying that we support the increased integrity measures found in Bill C-25, but we don't want these measures to raise barriers to entry for candidates running as independents, candidates in smaller parties or candidates in small, remote communities. The amendment speaks for itself. It's very straightforward. In effect, it says that it should be 75 signatures on the nomination papers. With all the other rules in place, and with a witness present, it would be 75 electors from that electoral district.

Again, given that this was in previous legislation, I hope committee members will see fit to accept the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I have Mr. Cooper and then Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I oppose this amendment.

One hundred signatures is hardly a barrier. We represent approximately 100,000 constituents. The idea that someone needs to find 100 electors to endorse their candidacy or it's a barrier to getting on the ballot is simply not credible. If anything, the threshold ought to be increased. I'm not proposing this, but if you're going to adjust the number, I would suggest that you might want to move it upwards, not downwards.

I would also note this with respect to ridings that are remote, rural or northern: The Canada Elections Act already takes that into account—or Parliament has taken that into account—by fashioning schedule three ridings, where the signature requirement is only 50 electors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the proposed amendment. When the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was discussing the longest ballot committee, we realized that there was value in prohibiting an elector from signing more than one candidate's nomination paper, which can be an additional barrier in remote ridings, however. I think it's perfectly reasonable in light of potential amendments to the bill in the next few hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to say that I agree with my colleague opposite on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate?

Since there seems to be some division, can we call the vote, please?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Christine Holke]

The vote is on PV-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We will proceed to PV-2.

Madam May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is, again, consistent with what was in Bill C-65. We want to improve the fairness and administrative efficiency by making the nomination window larger than it is in the current bill.

Just to reflect again.... Under the terms of the motion that was put forward, I can't enter into debate, so under those terms, I wasn't allowed to enter into discussion as to why it can be more difficult to collect 100 signatures in 2026 than it was in 1990.

What we discovered is that electors are extremely reticent and skeptical as to why they should provide information to a stranger on the street in ways that, in 2025 and 2026, aren't the same as in 2019. There's a large degree of resistance to providing personal information. You have to explain to someone on the street why you want their name and that it's not a scam. There's a lot more resistance and hostility in our current climate. It was to the point that volunteers were refusing to go back out, because they'd been harassed on the street for asking for information.

It matters, particularly in a snap election, to be able to collect the signatures. With this amendment—which, again, was in the framework of Bill C-65—we want to create the opportunity to start earlier, because collecting the signatures takes longer than it used to. You can run into a rainy day. We had electoral officers refusing signatures because they were smeared by the rain when they were brought to the electoral officer, having been collected on the street. People's electoral boundaries have changed, so sometimes they don't recognize the name across the top of the sheet.

All this is to say that this amendment, PV-2, is solely to ensure that you start collecting your nomination papers...that they can allow them to be filed from the first day of the pre-election period instead of only in the writ period.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, Ms. Normandin.

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

Thank you.

I have a question for the analysts.

In principle, the benefits I see in Bill C‑25 may be somewhat different from those Ms. May raised.

I recall one Alain Rayes, who told us that if he wanted to sit as an independent after leaving the Conservative caucus, he wouldn't be able to fundraise for his campaign until the day the election was called, whereas the other parties could start fundraising before that and have their signs ready to go. In that regard, I see why this would be helpful to independent candidates who were serious and wanted a bit of funding to run their campaigns. As we all know, money is the lifeblood of any campaign.

The problem I have, though, is that if the candidate has to file their papers with the returning officer during the pre-election period, that means the returning officer, the office and staff need to be in place during that period. That's a lot of expenses to cover during a period where they may not be as necessary. That's what I'd like to ask the analysts about.

In your assessment, would this require that returning officers' offices be open several months ahead of an election call?

[Trevor Knight, General Counsel, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

At this time.... You could collect the signatures at an earlier time, and we wouldn't have to open the returning officer's office earlier if we made this change.

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

I want to be sure I understand.

Could the nomination papers still be filed with, and received and confirmed by the returning officer, even if there isn't necessarily a returning officer on duty during the pre-election period?

[Trevor Knight]

Under the current act, the returning officer can accept the nomination paper only during the election period, once the notice of election is issued, but the signatures could be collected by the candidate before then.

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

Thank you, but that doesn't answer my question.

Does the returning officer have to be identified once the pre-election period begins or only once the election is called?

[Karolyn Savard, General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer]

I'll answer that.

Returning officers are always on duty.

I think you are asking about when the returning officer's office has to be opened. Yes, if nomination papers are being filed before the election period begins, offices would need to be opened prior to that date. Right now, I don't think that's possible. It's difficult as it is to set up the offices within the prescribed time frame, so this could create operational challenges.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, please, Ms. Fancy.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you very much.

Through you, Chair, we would deem this amendment out of scope for the following reason. Based on the strong and free elections act proposing targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that further protect and secure Canada's elections and respond to expert recommendations like those today and from the public inquiry into foreign interference, the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections, it is our opinion that this statement falls outside the scope.

We will be opposing the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

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

Just for greater clarity, right now any prospective candidate could go to the Elections Canada website, get the nomination papers, download them and print them, or whatever the case might be, and start collecting signatures if he or she chose to. Is that correct?

[Trevor Knight]

Yes, that's correct.