Evidence of meeting #35 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
If they meet that threshold and they would like to use their own funds, they would need to submit a financial statement as part of their reporting—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
The threshold is the year before the election period, so it's not just any year. It's not the aggregate of four years. It's the year before. What about the year before that? There's nothing there, right? The legislation doesn't address that scenario.
Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office
It doesn't address that. It could appear as part of their funds, but they would still, if it came two years before, let's say—some amount of money—it would show as part of their financial statement. It wasn't revenue generated here. It would have been a contribution of some sort from elsewhere.
It's not a perfect regime, as you've noted. It tries to balance the policy objective of keeping foreign funds out of our system with the earlier mentions of charter considerations to allow third parties to participate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
We'll call the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to)
(On clause 23)
We're on CPC-3.
Mr. Cooper.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
This amendment is entirely consistent with the previous amendment, except that it would apply during the election period, as opposed to the prewrit period.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Seeing no debate, I'll call the vote on CPC-3.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 23 agreed to)
(On clause 24)
For clause 24, we have CPC-4.
Mr. Cooper.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Given that the other two amendments were defeated, I'll withdraw this one, since it would follow only if they had been passed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
It won't be moved. Okay.
(Clause 24 agreed to)
(Clause 25 agreed to)
On BQ-12 and potential new clause 25.1, we have Madame Normandin.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This comment will apply to BQ‑16 as well.
This is about what we'd like to see in the bill, something we were somewhat disappointed wasn't in there. We do, however, appreciate the minister's openness to discussing public funding for political parties, as evidenced by his speech to the House and his appearance before the committee.
We would like members to consider restoring public funding for parties in three steps. That is more or less what we are trying to achieve with BQ‑12 and BQ‑16, although it's not comprehensive.
BQ‑12 would limit an individual's contribution, and should be considered in conjunction with two other elements we would've liked to see included, or, rather, did include by way of an amendment.
First, the tax credit voters receive for making a contribution would be eliminated. At the risk of repeating myself, I had explained it this way. For example, if an individual donates $400 to the Bloc Québécois, they get a tax refund of $300. That means that the government is funding the Bloc Québécois at a rate of $300 and is using taxpayer money to fund a political entity. As a result, the government, meaning taxpayers, are funding political parties at a rate commensurate with how deep donors' pockets are. To address that, the corollary would've been to restore public funding for parties based on the number of votes received, using the savings from eliminating the tax credit. That funding would be provided as a quarterly allowance, which is what the next amendment is about.
Eliminating the tax credit would have required amending the Income Tax Act, which would have been a rather lengthy and complicated process in the circumstances.
In short, the amendment seeks to establish one of the three steps that would restore public funding for political parties, which had previously been eliminated. They need to be read in conjunction with one another.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Is there any further debate? Seeing none, we will go to a vote on BQ-12.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Shall clause 26 carry?
(Clause 26 agreed to)
We are on potential new clause 26.1, and we have amendment BQ-13.
Go ahead, Madame Normandin.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's fairly simple. The new clauses on foreign interference capture potential candidates. Why wait until a person formally becomes a candidate to combat foreign interference? A foreign agent can interfere in the democratic process much earlier on. That is why Bill C‑25 already refers to potential candidates. That said, the funding provisions don't apply to potential candidates. The idea is simply to address foreign interference in a consistent manner and capture potential candidates in the fundraising event provisions. When the Chief Electoral Officer was asked about it, he said it seemed like a sensible measure.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you.
I would oppose this, not because we're against it, but because it's redundant. Section 477 deems that someone is a candidate the moment they receive a contribution. That means we don't need this amendment, because if you're a potential candidate, you're already captured. Also, the words “potential candidate” could create some internal inconsistency in the act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
Thank you.
I see no further debate. I'll call the vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
We are on potential new clause 27.1, and we have amendment CPC-5.
I'll go to Mr. Cooper.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would specify that information published by the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to a contributor would limit information related to the address and location of the donor. As it stands right now, for anyone who donates $200 or more, if one goes into the Elections Canada database, they can find out the postal code and name of the donor. That can lead to it being relatively easy, with perhaps some additional pieces of information, to track down donors. In many instances, these could be public officials, cabinet ministers or senior members of Parliament.
This measure is aimed at safeguarding the location of donors and, at the same time, ensuring that there continues to be transparency as to who those individuals are and what amounts they donate to candidates or political parties.
Liberal
Matt Jeneroux Liberal Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Briefly, Elections Canada already limits publication of this information, with the exception of providing the full postal code, so we'll be voting against this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
There is no further debate. We can call the vote on CPC-5.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on BQ-14.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
The point here is basically the same as what I said about adding potential candidates. I won't give a long-winded explanation.
Liberal
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
I just want to say that the definition in section 477 of the Canada Elections Act is already comprehensive, so adding this reference would be redundant.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle
All those in favour of BQ-14?
(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(On clause 28)
NDP-1 is deemed moved pursuant to the routine motion adopted by the committee on June 10, 2025. Since NDP-1 is deemed moved, BQ-15 cannot be moved, as they are identical.
Rules are rules. I am merely a servant of the committee.
Since the NDP isn't there, I open the floor to Ms. Normandin.
They snuck it in just before you got your amendment in.