Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 2nd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the committee is meeting to continue its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact an act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026. The short title is the strong and free elections act.

Today's meeting is taking place in public, in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely, using the Zoom application.

Before I continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the tables. These measures are in place to help prevent audio feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of everyone in the room, 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 the listening channel you need in advance, in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

I have a few comments for the benefit of members. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, raise your hand. For members on Zoom, use the “raise hand” feature. The clerk and I will do our best to keep a list.

I would like to welcome back our officials. I won't go through the introductions, but welcome back.

We will continue with clause-by-clause consideration.

We voted on CPC-6. It was defeated.

(Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to)

(On clause 39)

We're on clause 39, amendment G-1.

Ms. Vandenbeld, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

Amendment G-1 also addresses the recommendations by the committee on the unduly long ballots. It did say that we would have a unique official agent for each candidate in each district, but it didn't really clarify that it was in a particular election. What this amendment does, for that ambiguity, is make sure that in the next election an official agent can be an official agent for a different candidate. They just can't do it in the same, current election. It's just a clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 39 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to)

(On clause 43)

We're on clause 43, amendment G-2.

Mrs. Brière, you have the floor.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

We just need to add a zero to the amount. It says 325 instead of 3,250.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Is there any debate?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 43 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 44 to 47 agreed to)

(On clause 48)

On clause 48, we have amendment CPC-7.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would include a reference to audio recordings, in the English version, of the parody and satire defence to the offence, which is proposed to be extended by this clause. This was further to a recommendation offered by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Louis.

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

I appreciate the nod to the audio industry. As someone who made a living from the audio industry, I'm going to support this one, obviously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Can we agree on that one?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 48 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to)

(On clause 51)

We have CPC-7.1 and Mr. Cooper.

We're going to suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

We're back.

I'll turn to Mr. Cooper.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment relates to proposed section 482.01, which is the false statements offence. There are a number of examples of an offence that could be established in respect of a false statement or in respect of a number of things that are enumerated in the clause.

This amendment would remove paragraph 482.01(g) of proposed section 482.01, which is “the preliminary, validated or official results of an election.”

There are a few reasons that I have put forward this amendment. The first is that, as we heard from Gerald Chipeur, a long-standing, respected constitutional lawyer, there are free speech implications at play.

Second, it seems that this paragraph is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. Third, it could have a chilling effect in respect of questions that often occur in elections when there are questions about the outcome or the results of an election, such as what happened in Terrebonne. For those reasons, I would encourage the committee to support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Madam Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We oppose this amendment, because Bill C-25 requires that the statement made be fraudulent and made with the intent to affect results or disrupt the conduct of an election, leadership contest or nomination contest. This measure does not restrict genuine debate, opinions, satire or parody. The goal is not to limit free expression but to stop those who intend to deliberately mislead Canadians, sow confusion or affect the conduct of or outcome of our elections.

Given these important guardrails and the fact that the spread of disinformation has become one of the greatest threats to our democratic processes, we won't be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would be quite curious to know the officials' position on the impact of the amendment introduced by Mr. Cooper. Would it have any effect? What would it change?

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

Thank you for the question.

The act currently doesn't capture opinions, good faith statements or honest mistakes, and these new prohibitions wouldn't change that. These are for statements an individual knows to be incorrect or false, and for when they have the intent to disrupt the conduct or results of an election.

Paragraph 482.01(g).... In fact, all seven statements here have been scoped and integrated in order to protect the legitimacy of the electoral process while respecting freedom of speech. They are also, again, designed to capture intentional bad actions in a narrow set of circumstances that are very specific to the electoral context.

Any of these statements could be removed, but it would leave a gap in terms of potential statements that could be made. For example, say an election result isn't ready. The ballots still need to be counted overnight and news outlets have agreed that election results won't be ready until the next morning. A candidate could potentially go on social media and say, “I have won the election.” That is something paragraph 482.01(g) would capture.

Again, I will stress that it's for when a person knows a statement is false and they have the intent to disrupt the conduct or results of an election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you.

Mr. Jackson.

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

Thanks, Chair.

Following on that, I understand this would apply to the federal situation, but we had a provincial leadership race in Manitoba a number of years ago. The candidate who lost the election went on the media the next day—even though her campaign team in the ballot room had scrutinized the ballots and knew the result—and publicly said, “I won the election.” That was fraudulent. It was handled badly. Even though it wasn't...and she had sworn witnesses.

How would this bill, if implemented, impact that situation?

[Rachel Pereira]

The commissioner of Canada elections would have the opportunity, if there is merit, to investigate if someone suggests that a false statement was made. They've been designed to be relatively easily verifiable. Something did or didn't happen.

However, the act and the commissioner are not there to be punitive. She's there to act in the public interest. If there is something that is known to be false by an individual who had the intent to disrupt.... The bar would be pretty high. It would be an offence under the act, but it would really depend on each particular circumstance. Each instance would potentially be investigated, or not, as an offence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Mr. Cooper.

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

Certainly, the bar would be high. The standard is intent. That is an important safeguard.

Nonetheless, I emphasize that it could have unintended consequences—a chilling effect—when there are legitimate questions about elections. I can recall, for example, a friend of mine who's now a minister in the province of Saskatchewan. He lost his seat in 2006 by 53 votes. There were all kinds of irregularities in that particular riding, including the winning candidate holding raffles and auctioning off TVs, among other allegations. When the result came down to one vote in Terrebonne, there were questions in that case too.

That is my primary concern—the unintended consequences this might have. It's not about persons going out and wilfully spreading misinformation or disinformation about legitimate election results. In every election, there are one or two ridings where it's a close race, where irregularities may happen or where there are allegations and close outcomes. That is what I'm concerned about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Seeing no further debate, we will call the vote on CPC-7.1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Clauses 51 and 52 agreed to)

(On clause 53)

CPC-8 would create an incoherence if it is moved.

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

Because of previous amendments, I will withdraw this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Wonderful. Thank you.

(Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to)

(On clause 55)

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Madame DeBellefeuille, go ahead.