Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Shall clause 4 carry?

(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)

We'll go to proposed new clause 5.1.

We'll start with CPC-1. If CPC-1 is passed, G-0.1 cannot be moved.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is a security measure to better strengthen the integrity of the voting process with respect to ensuring that ballot boxes are appropriately secured. Elections Canada does have certain procedures in place, obviously, with respect to chain of custody and how ballot boxes are secured, but I would submit that those rules are simply inadequate to ensure the integrity and security of our elections.

At present, a DRO can take a ballot box from an advance polling location to store it at their home overnight. Yes, the ballot box is sealed and signed. There's an official transport bag. There are signatures required before the ballot box is sealed, taken home, brought back to the polling location and then reopened. However, the idea that DROs are taking ballot boxes, with potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of ballots, to their homes opens the door to potentially real problems.

Fortunately, to my knowledge, there hasn't been any major incident, but that is not to say that something like that might not arise. We shouldn't react when something happens that causes issues with the integrity of the voting process. Frankly, we should have the foresight to take preventative measures. This is one measure that I think is eminently reasonable. It's simply to require that ballot boxes be sealed and stored under lock and key at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and that there be video surveillance, so that there's no question about who has come in contact with that ballot box while it is being stored. If there is any tampering, there would be evidence of that to initiate any prosecution.

I recognize that there are some practical challenges, given the geographic size of certain ridings in rural areas and in the north, ridings like Nunavut, but this amendment would provide that the Chief Electoral Officer could specify alternative measures. It's not a one-size-fits-all amendment. It does give the Chief Electoral Officer flexibility where appropriate. In most ridings, certainly in virtually every urban riding, there is no reason for a DRO to be taking a ballot box back to their home. There is no practical impediment as to why they could not simply bring the ballot box to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and store the ballot box or boxes under lock and key, with a surveillance camera. Yes, it may not be practical in all 342 ridings, but in the vast majority of ridings, it is quite logistically possible. It also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer can make certain exceptions where appropriate.

The integrity of the voting process is paramount. In order to ensure that the process is carried out, not only must the process be carried out with full integrity, but there must also be public confidence in that process.

This amendment, I believe, will help safeguard our elections and also enhance public confidence that our elections are being administered in a way that ensures that every ballot is counted and will guard against any sort of abuse or tampering with ballots.

Not only that, but just even in good faith, the idea that DROs are carrying around ballot boxes and, for example, are storing them in their homes, etc., in a G7 democracy.... That just doesn't seem to be up to the level that I think most Canadians would expect in terms of how the ballots they cast when they go out and vote are being secured.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Cooper.

We'll go to Mr. Jeneroux and then to Madame Normandin.

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right before this amendment, I think you raised the fact that there's a G-0.1 that is coming. I know there have been discussions with those on the other side.

I want to stress, before stating a position on this, that I definitely don't disagree with the principle and the spirit of what Mr. Cooper was saying. I just think there's an alternative approach, which we'll be providing.

We'll be voting against this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Similarly, it's difficult for me not to support the principle here. However, I wonder whether it's necessary to specifically lay out in the bill the use of a three-point locking system or monitoring by video surveillance. Clearly, the elections act isn't reviewed annually. The technology referred to could become obsolete fairly soon, which would require that the act be reviewed and amended. The proposed measure could instead be introduced by regulation or through a simple directive of the Chief Electoral Officer, so I have questions about the appropriateness of using the act for this, instead of something more flexible. I will therefore be voting against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, I will call the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We'll move on to BQ-0.2, Madame Normandin.

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

Yes, thank you.

This amendment stems from a recommendation made by the Chief Electoral Officer. The committee heard about the situation in Alberta, where voter data was leaked. In some cases, the names and addresses of women who were victims of domestic violence were made public. This amendment would implement exactly what the Chief Electoral Officer had recommended, by allowing an elector to be removed from the list to protect their safety, for instance, while ensuring their right to vote remained intact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, Mrs. Brière.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I am sensitive to the member's comments, the amendment doesn't include any circumstances in which an elector may request to be excluded from the list. For that reason, we cannot support it.

What's more, electors can already ask to be deleted from the national register of electors, which, in our view, has a lot more impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Seeing no further debate, we'll call the vote.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We will now turn to BQ-1, Madame Normandin.

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

I'll make a general comment on this amendment and those that follow pertaining to the same thing, in other words, the ability to vouch for another elector.

We live in a time when there are an increasing number of ways to prove our identity and when we all have thicker and thicker wallets full of cards. On top of that, we always want to prevent voter fraud. In light of all that, we are proposing putting an end to the practice of vouching for someone and their residential address. The amendment also reflects the fact that a single vote can make all the difference in some ridings, as we've recently seen.

For those reasons, this amendment and others seek to disallow the practice of making a solemn declaration for the purpose of vouching for another person or their residential address.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Mr. Louis, go ahead.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate the amendment; however, I don't remember having that discussion. I believe this is outside the scope of what we're doing here for this bill. This isn't the place to have that discussion, but there might be others, so I will be voting against this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Okay.

Yes, Mr. Jackson, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

This is maybe a question for Madame Normandin.

Just to clarify, does this amendment remove the ability of an elector to vote after being vouched for at a polling station? You can no longer vouch for someone at a polling station.

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

This amendment and others seek precisely to eliminate the possibility of vouching for a person so that they can vote. Currently, a person can make a solemn declaration so that an elector who shows up at a polling station without any identification can vote. That is precisely what we want to eliminate through this amendment and other consequential amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Seeing nothing further, we'll call the vote on BQ-1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We will now go to BQ-2.

Madame Normandin, go ahead.

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

If memory serves me correctly, the rest of the amendments up to BQ‑11 are consequential amendments, since many provisions in the Canada Elections Act pertain to making a solemn declaration for the purpose of vouching for an elector or their address. The proposed amendments all relate to the solemn declaration and were necessary for consistency. I won't repeat my long speech for those remaining amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We can defeat....

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

To speed things up, I could just not move the other amendments, so we wouldn't have to vote, Mr. Chair. That would move things along.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Okay. It's not being moved.

We'll now go to G-0.1.

I think that's Madam Kayabaga.

It's a new one. It has been distributed to the members in both paper and electronic formats.