Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 28th, 2026

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

Is there any reason why, for example, a coming into force date for a change of that form might be problematic for a candidate? For example, if the nomination paper form were to be changed by an amendment to the act, or through some other process or regulatory change, would that cause any problems? Let's say it came into force on the first day of the pre-writ period for a future fixed election date. Would that be problematic for candidates, or do you suppose that the old forms would work if people were to collect signatures beforehand, hypothetically?

Was I clear in my question?

[Trevor Knight]

You were clear in your question. I'm just hesitant to give a response to a hypothetical situation. It's not hypothetical—I understand why it's a question—but generally the rule is that if you use a form that is an older form but the substance of what is required by the act is there, then you can use that.

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

It shouldn't be a problem, then.

[Trevor Knight]

Insofar as there is, for example, a warning added to the form, and they're using the form that existed before that warning was added, if I'm understanding your question—

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

Yes.

[Trevor Knight]

—then presumably that would still be an acceptable form.

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

Okay. It's a solution in search of a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Ms. May, be very quick.

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

Again, just to clarify what the amendment is about, yes, you can collect ahead, but to make sure that the signature is accepted, you have to be able to file it. The Chief Electoral Officer has to be able to look at it.

The amendment is to that issue. I appreciate the clarification that was just brought forward by Blaine.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Go ahead, Mr. Kram.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to filing the papers after June 30, that would mean opening the offices in every riding for the months of July and August in a fixed election year. Could the witnesses give a high-level estimate as to what the cost would be for taxpayers to have the offices open for those extra two months?

[Trevor Knight]

I'm sorry. I don't think I can give you a high-level estimate. This was my misunderstanding before. There are different ways to file right now, and those would continue. You can file a nomination paper online, in person or by email. I don't necessarily think that the opportunity to file earlier would necessitate opening the office solely for that purpose.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Okay.

[Trevor Knight]

I'm sorry. I think I was unclear before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Seeing no further debate, we will call the vote, please.

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

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

We are dealing with amendment BQ-0.1.

Go ahead, Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you.

I've talked about this a few times at committee meetings, so I won't spend 10 minutes explaining why this amendment is warranted. While I understand the desire to limit nomination paper signatures to one per elector, implementing that depends on other means that we will be debating today. Preventing an elector from signing more than one candidate's nomination paper seems to have an unequal number of pros and cons. Notably, as the Chief Electoral Officer indicated, it's impossible to check or cross-check signatures in a timely manner, to determine whether an elector has signed more than one nomination paper. Regardless, it wouldn't be grounds to disqualify a candidacy. The measure does not have any real coercive effect. The hope is that it will deter people by putting the responsibility on the elector as opposed to a person encouraging electors to sign multiple nomination papers.

As I see it, this also breaches the secrecy of the vote, since people will be told that they can't sign the nomination paper of more than one candidate. That could give the impression that they are supporting a candidate, even if that's not the case. At the beginning of the campaign, electors may not know who they are going to vote for and may want to see two candidates in the race. An elector who wants two candidates to run for the seat because it would make for a better debate is being prevented from signing both candidates' nomination papers. As far as I can see, the downsides of preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper outweigh the upsides. That is why we are proposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should keep this section of the bill. If we remove it, it's inconsistent with the purpose of the bill, which is to avoid those really long ballots with multiple candidates. We've seen that, if we go only with the official agent, it's not enough. This is really a way of preventing abuse, so I think we should maintain it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We have Mr. Cooper and then Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the spirit with which this amendment has been brought forward, but I cannot support it.

The purpose of the amendment is to deal with what have been provisions of the act that have been abused. One of those sections relates to the collection of signatures by groups like the longest ballot committee that have taken multiple candidate nomination forms, gone to the same pool of 100 electors and gotten that same pool of roughly 100 electors to sign multiple candidate nomination papers to put on the ballot, which amount to fake candidates. By fake candidates, I mean people who are not running to get elected. They're not putting forward policy positions, and they're not campaigning. They're basically nothing more than a name on the ballot.

The intent of the act is that, for a candidate to get on to the ballot, the candidate must have the endorsement of 100 electors, not that a group of 100 electors can put on the ballot a seemingly endless list of candidates.

With respect to any confusion that electors may have in understanding that, with this change, they would be, under the law, permitted to sign or endorse only a single candidate per election, and that could be addressed by Elections Canada by including on the nomination form that you may sign the papers of only one candidate. In terms of there being any confusion or misunderstanding, that can easily be addressed.

I take it, based upon testimony from the Chief Electoral Officer and the minister, that Elections Canada would likely undertake amending the forms should this amendment to the act pass.

Are there pitfalls to it? Arguably, there are, but on balance, I think it is a reasonable amendment that is consistent with the purpose or intent of the act that a candidate must have the endorsement of 100 electors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Chair.

If this amendment is defeated, we revert to the changes that are in the act.

I would like some clarity. In a situation where an elector did sign multiple nomination forms for multiple candidates, how would that be adjudicated by the returning officer in that constituency? Would one of the five signatures count? Would none of the five signatures count? How would that be interpreted?

[Trevor Knight]

I assume that what you're asking is how it would work under the bill as drafted. Right now, under the bill, the candidate can't be refused on the basis of having multiple signatures, so I don't think any of them would be thrown out in that sense. It would be an offence to sign or to incite people to participate that way, but a person would still become a candidate if they had repeat signatures.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Seeing nothing further, I will test if this could be defeated on division or if you'd like a vote.

Let's have a vote. Okay.

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