Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Can we pause, Chair? I think you just removed some amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Sure. This is probably a good time for a break for everyone.

We'll take five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I call the meeting back to order.

I have Ms. Kayabaga on G-0.1.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill C-25 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 3 the following:

5.1 Subsection 175(5) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4.1) The candidates or their representatives may, when an advance polling station closes on each of the four days of advanced polling, sign the seal on any ballot box that was used on that day.

(5) Until the counting of the ballots on polling day, an election officer shall keep the sealed ballot box or boxes in their custody in accordance with the Chief Electoral Officer's instructions. The election officer shall

(a) take every precaution to ensure the safekeeping of the sealed ballot box or boxes and to prevent any person from having unlawful access to the box or boxes; and

(b) if they deliver the custody of the sealed ballot box or boxes into custody of another election officer, make a record that they have done so and ensure that the candidates are notified in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Is there debate?

I have Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just ask the officials to provide their analysis on the impact this amendment would have in terms of how ballot boxes are sealed, compared to today.

[Trevor Knight]

In terms of how they're sealed, I don't think it would be different, except that this would be in legislation, whereas right now it is in the Chief Electoral Officer's instructions.

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

If I understand correctly, this amendment is codifying the current instructions of the Chief Electoral Officer to DROs.

[Trevor Knight]

I don't have it in front of me, but based on what I understand, that element is codifying it, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Seeing no further debate, shall G-0.1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clauses 6 to 18 agreed to)

(On clause 19)

On amendment CPC-2, we have Mr. Cooper.

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

This amendment relates specifically to the pre-election period. The next amendment deals with the election period but is otherwise the same.

In short, what this amendment would do for the pre-election period—as does the subsequent amendment, which is identical other than that it covers the election period—is require third parties to set up a separate bank account for the purpose of engaging in regulated activities, in which monies to that bank account could come only from individual Canadians.

This bill, unamended and in its current form, does go some way to closing existing loopholes that have been taken advantage of by foreign actors, foreign governments and registered third parties that have colluded with foreign interests to take foreign money that is then used to influence Canadians at election time. This is not a hypothetical. It is well documented.

Indeed, I wrote to the commissioner of Elections Canada back in 2017. I highlighted that a substantial amount of money—millions of dollars—had been funnelled from the United States, from the Tides Foundation, based in San Francisco, to a registered third party that then funnelled the money into other third parties, which then used those funds in the 2015 election campaign against the Harper government and Conservative candidates.

The commissioner wrote back to me and indicated that there had not been a contravention of the Canada Elections Act at the time. I think most Canadians would have been shocked to learn that millions of dollars from the Tides Foundation in the United States could have been used by third parties to influence their vote, but that is what the Canada Elections Act provided for.

The Liberals did bring in legislation in 2018 that made a number of amendments to the Canada Elections Act. Those amendments did close some of the loopholes that existed with respect to foreign funding of third parties, but loopholes remain.

This bill, in light of ongoing concerns about these loopholes, goes a long way, as I noted, to closing them by requiring third parties to set up a separate bank account for which contributions can come only from individual Canadians. The problem is that it doesn't go all the way. It leaves an exception whereby third parties would be exempted and could use their own funds, if contributions amount to 10% or less of their annual revenue in the year prior to the fixed election year. This is problematic, from the standpoint of foreign money continuing to be used by third parties, in a number of ways.

First of all, given that we are oftentimes in a fixed election period—we could be in one now, because when there's a majority government, it is usually the case—it's very easy for third parties and foreign interests to look at the calendar and anticipate when an election might be.

Here we have a situation where a foreign interest could funnel money into a third party two or three years ahead of schedule. When I asked the Chief Electoral Officer what the impact of this would be and how those funds would be treated, I said that they would be “melded and treated as part of the [funds] of the third party”, whatever the ultimate source might be. What the Chief Electoral Officer confirmed in his answer to my question is that such monies could be foreign. In other words, it would leave a significant loophole open to be exploited.

The other thing I would note is this idea of 10%. It sounds like a small number, except for the fact that it may not be a small number. There are third parties that have a lot of money. What constitutes 10% or less of their revenue coming from contributions may in fact be millions of dollars. Again, not only would there be the issue of foreign money coming in, but you would create what could be an imbalance of sorts, whereby small third parties might have to set up a separate bank account, but very large third parties—which arguably have much greater influence by virtue of the resources they have—would be able to get around that and use their own funds.

I said that the best solution would be to simply have a uniform rule for all third parties, whereby they must set up their own separate bank account to engage in regulated activities. Now, it's true that the Chief Electoral Officer did not endorse the position I've taken. He cited charter issues. More specifically, the charter issues he cited were around freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Those are certainly important, fundamental freedoms that must be respected under the charter. I was quite skeptical of his position with respect to there being charter implications, given that the government is already going a long way in terms of requiring third parties to set up a separate bank account, with this exception.

I asked a number of witnesses, including Gerald Chipeur, an esteemed constitutional lawyer, what the charter implications would be, and he answered that there'd be none. There is no authority that would indicate that simply requiring all third parties to set up a separate bank account.... It would pass constitutional muster. That was Mr. Chipeur's position. That was the position of other witnesses, including Professor Turnbull. I didn't ask her specifically about charter implications. It was from the standpoint of whether this would be overly burdensome or reasonable. Professor Turnbull said that it would be reasonable and that it makes sense.

There is a very real problem of foreign money, underscored by the very real issue of interference by hostile foreign states. Taken together, this underscores the need for a fix. The government has acknowledged that there needs to be a fix, hence the changes that would be made with this bill—except for the fact that it would be only a partial fix. In a lot of ways, in seeking to fix what is a real problem to the degree that certain loopholes would be closed, other loopholes would be created, and they would inevitably be exploited.

Given the argument put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer around charter implications, I would submit that they're just not that strong. Given that, given the lack of any authority to indicate that this would be offside from a charter standpoint, and given the real problems around foreign money and foreign interference, I would submit that we ought to have one standard and consistent rule. It makes sense. It's not overly burdensome. Everyone plays by the same rules from the standpoint of Elections Canada in terms of filing and ensuring compliance. It also makes it a lot simpler from that standpoint.

For those reasons, I would urge the committee to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Fancy.

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

I'd like to thank my colleague for his testimony today in regard to his amendment.

I would like to read into the record our opposition to this amendment for two particular reasons. We feel that, as we've heard from numerous witnesses, there would be a significant charter risk in doing this amendment. As when you were here, the CEO, in his appearance before our committee, said in addition to others that....

We'd like to just take a moment to quote Dr. Holly Ann Garnett, who was here:

I believe [it] to be an entirely reasonable balance between the principles of freedom of debate and freedom from foreign interference...for a few practical reasons.

These were her two reasons:

First, not all third parties are contribution-based organizations. They [must] use membership dues or the revenues of a corporation. Thus, the 10% rule seeks to ensure that these types of third parties are not pushed out of the electoral conversation and can engage in the debate with their own revenues.

Second, third parties do not register until the pre-electoral or electoral period in the current regime. Since elections can take place at largely any point in Canada, third parties must be allowed some [form of] flexibility to use their own funds in engaging in the electoral debate.

Given the quoted testimony from our witness, we will not be supporting CPC-2 or the other related amendments, CPC-3 or CPC-4.

I'd like to thank my colleague for his testimony today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Jackson.

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

I'm very pleased to put a few words on the record today about this amendment.

I'm disappointed that the government side has decided not to support it. They're quoting one expert we heard from at this committee, but there were many others who thought the charter challenge question raised by the Chief Electoral Officer.... He was straining to find a reason to keep it, I think, would probably be the most generous way to describe his argument that this 10% cap should be imposed and not go all the way. For them to use one witness's testimony rather than that of the number of constitutional experts we heard from, to base their decision to vote down this amendment is particularly disappointing.

When we drive around during elections, we see that Manitobans and all Canadians are looking at signs not just from political parties and candidates, but from third parties of various different kinds. Pick the type of third party organization—it doesn't matter. They have billboards up and ads on the radio and maybe television, if they're a particularly wealthy third party organization—as we know, television ads are quite costly in this country. My Manitoba constituents assume pretty much that those ads are paid for by Canadians.

Wandering around my constituency I would struggle to find a handful of my constituents who know that those advertisements could have been paid for by people from anywhere else in the world. I think they would find that to be a ludicrous proposition, number one, that this is allowed to begin with; and number two, that somehow it's a Canadian organization's individual charter right to use foreign funds to deliver a politically targeted message. It would take me a very long time, in the 18,000 square kilometres that I represent, to find a Manitoban who thinks that's an appropriate assessment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think this is a ludicrous proposition, really, that's being put forward today as to why we need to allow this 10% cap, which my colleague Mr. Cooper rightly points out sounds really small when you mention it as 10% of a donation. If somebody is giving $200 million from a super PAC in the U.S., regardless of their political affiliation, 10% of that is still a lot of money in a Canadian election, where we have significantly lower spending caps and donation limits for individual Canadian citizens who are donating.

If these funds are donated, again, as Mr. Cooper rightly points out, before the year prior to the election—which this legislation as it currently exists leaves as a loophole—they're free to do that. The organization is free to use all of that donation as their own funds and use it for political purposes during the prewrit or writ period.

I would challenge the Liberal members to find constituents who think it is appropriate to use foreign dollars to try to persuade Canadians to vote in one direction or another. They shouldn't be coming from the U.S. They shouldn't be coming from China. They shouldn't be coming from Europe, regardless of the political campaign or policy issue that they're supporting. This money should not be in Canadian elections—it just shouldn't. There's absolutely no reason for it.

This extremely weak, tenuous charter argument is, in my opinion, a ludicrous justification and use of the charter to defend foreign money in Canadian elections. It shouldn't happen.

I'm quite sure that my argument today is not going to persuade Liberal members to change their votes, but I think it's leaving a vast loophole open in our system, which we could very quickly and easily solve today. It affects all political parties equally. There is not one that benefits more or less from removing foreign funds completely from third parties' ability to fund advertisements during prewrit and writ periods. There is no reason that we Conservatives are trying to get a one-up on the Liberals here, or vice versa. This impacts third parties that campaign on all sides of the political spectrum and for particular niche policy issues.

I'm finding it very difficult to follow the tenuous, strained argument that the government side is putting forward today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Calkins.

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

I'll just reiterate a bit of what Mr. Jackson has said.

It would apply to a large multinational oil and gas company every bit as much as it would apply to the Tides Foundation or anybody else. I think the real question is one of integrity. I'm not talking about the integrity of the members here. I'm talking about the integrity of the electoral process and the election. I think we should be ensuring that integrity to the best of our ability wherever possible, while allowing people who ought to be allowed to be involved in the discussion of an election in Canada—which is, frankly, Canadian citizens and Canadian voters—and it should involve financing only from those very same interests.

Just to read a few things off, the Tides Foundation, as of 2024, has net assets of half a billion dollars. In 2024, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation had assets of $8.5 billion. The Pew Charitable Trusts' consolidated total assets are $7.5 billion. Why would we want any of that money interfering in the Canadian election process if it's not sourced from Canadians, every bit as much as we wouldn't want money from a large multinational conglomerate doing the same thing?

I think it's a very reasonable, well-intentioned and, frankly, patriotic amendment to the legislation. I would just encourage my colleagues to reconsider their position, given the fact that out of all the witnesses we've heard from, we can find far more suggesting that this is a good idea than those finding a problem with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you Mr. Calkins.

Mr. Cooper.

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

I'm certainly not trying to belabour this, but I would add a few points. First of all, we regulate political parties. We regulate them extensively. This bill regulates them more with respect to leadership and nomination races, and quite appropriately so.

We also regulate third parties. There's a fairly comprehensive regime provided for in the Canada Elections Act. It's not as if anyone can set up a third party and do whatever they want when engaging in what are regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods. In light of that, it seems entirely consistent to provide that third parties, which cannot spend any amount of money—they're limited in terms of how much money they can spend during the election period and the pre-election period—can use only funds from individual Canadians. We can say to them, “As a safeguard to ensure that that's the source of the funds, you're going to set up a separate bank account, and you're going to provide filings that demonstrate that that's where those monies were used for regulated activities.”

That's what this bill does, except for this big, gaping hole. It would also put third parties, in that sense, in line with political parties, which can use only funds from individual Canadians. That's been the case now in Canada for more than 20 years.

With respect to the charter arguments, these are arguments in a vacuum. There's been no case authority cited as an example. There's really been no effort made to establish what precisely the charter arguments against this type of amendment are and why they wouldn't sustain or pass muster under section 1, at the very least. I don't even think you'd need to get to section 1.

I would just ask, officials, if you have any expectations of how many third parties will be able to avail themselves of the 10% exemption and if you could give any examples.

[Trevor Knight]

I think the answer is that because this is a new requirement, we wouldn't be able to say exactly how many, and I don't have those numbers for you. Generally, we would expect that to the extent there's a third party right now that is a corporation or a union, they would be able to avail themselves of these sorts of exceptions.

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

In terms of this 10% figure, why 10%? Why not 8% or 12%? It seems entirely arbitrary.

[Rachel Pereira, Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Thank you for the question.

Ten per cent is a reasonable percentage. It was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. I believe it's also a percentage that's used by the Canada Revenue Agency. In terms of considering 90% overall revenue, there's a 10% leeway. It's a factor of 10, which is also easy to work with in terms of the calculation. There are some practical reasons for the 10%, as well as the commissioner's noting that 10% is considered a significant amount in contributions.

If it's helpful, I would note, too, the proposal in the bill that third parties will not be able to contribute to each other any longer, and that the definition of “own funds”, if they meet the threshold of 10% or less, excludes contributions of any kind. “Own funds” refers to the third party's own funds, generated in Canada.

As a very simple example, if there were donations of $500 that the third party received, and they had $9,000 in own funds.... Let's say they receive $500 from a foreign entity, a U.S. entity or something like that. That's $10,000 overall in revenues that they've received. They have only $500 in donations, so they would meet that threshold of being under the 10%, but they could use only $9,000, their own funds. They wouldn't be able to use the $500 that came from elsewhere. They're limited to their own funds. They would have to then report if they meet that threshold. The report would provide some transparency as to where those funds come from, given the challenges noted around money being fungible.

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

What if those contributions were made three years before, in the pre-election period? How would that look from a reporting standpoint?

[Rachel Pereira]

It could be part of their general revenue fund, but they would still meet that threshold. Technically, they wouldn't be able to use that, but if they haven't kept track of that, they would have to now under the bill, because this is the new rule if they want to participate. The reporting requirement is that they would have to demonstrate own funds. That would be the mechanism by which that would be verified.

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

You said “they would have to demonstrate own funds”. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?