Bill C-25

Strong and Free Elections Act

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026

This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things,
(a) establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, accepting or offering a bribe, unauthorized use of a computer, making or publishing false or misleading information respecting elections and the candidate nomination process;
(b) establish new prohibitions in relation to voting in a nomination contest or leadership contest;
(c) prohibit the acceptance or use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties, including from anonymous sources;
(d) provide for new requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information; and
(e) expand the scope of certain provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of that Act, including by increasing the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and by granting the Commissioner of Canada Elections certain powers in respect of any conspiracy or attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to, a contravention of that Act.
The enactment also enacts a statute to change the name of certain electoral districts as a result of proposals by the members of the House of Commons who represent those electoral districts.

Third Reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting when the member was talking about the longest ballot issue. I am in full agreement on how we are moving forward with the official agents, because it makes absolutely no sense at all to have a multitude of candidates being represented in one riding by one official agent. That is a positive.

The area that caught my interest was her explanation of getting the nomination form signed. When I go to the doors, I will often say it does not mean they are supporting me. All it means is that I am able to get my name on the ballot. Generally speaking, people of all political stripes are very sympathetic to that. I am somewhat concerned about the Bloc's looking for an alternative to it.

Because Elections Canada has a mechanism to enable party feedback, has the Bloc party's representative provided that sort of feedback on the issue? If not, maybe that is something they could review in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the parliamentary secretary's question, it is important to remember that the measure has still not been adopted. In fact, it does not exist until the bill receives royal assent.

We made these recommendations in committee proactively and asked the Chief Electoral Officer some questions directly. Who better to answer our questions than the Chief Electoral Officer himself? He confirmed that, in any case, there is no way to implement an enforcement mechanism to prevent someone from signing more than one nomination form.

He told us very openly that he hoped this measure would act as a deterrent, but that, otherwise, we could not hope to solve the problem with this measure alone. Our argument is that all the other measures, such as the single official agent that the parliamentary secretary mentioned and the sanctions imposed on those who encourage someone to sign multiple nomination forms, would be enough.

In other words, there is no added value in the requirement to have a single signature, although there are several disadvantages.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her speech, which was clearly very well researched. I also want to congratulate her, not only on her new role, although she has been in that role for a while, but also on a wonderful year, both personally and professionally. In fact, all our colleagues I talk to about are very happy for her. Everyone is pleased with the work done by my colleague.

Speaking of election laws, as parliamentarians we are in an extraordinary conflict of interest, since that is our job. That is our job and the reality we face. Our organizations, meaning political parties, are directly affected by the rules we adopt.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on her party's experience over the past year. This is a unique situation, not unlike the well-known 50%-plus-one debate, where a single vote made a difference and the courts were called upon to rule on it.

Can my colleague share the lessons we, as a society, were able to learn from this event?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk for his kind words. First of all, I really appreciate it. He is a colleague that I hold in high regard.

There is a lot in that question. I think that many people have learned a number of lessons, sometimes different ones. However, the one that is perhaps the most objective and applies to all parties, and even more so to the public, is the idea that every vote counts. I think that is the lesson everyone has learned.

As for the rest, the methods used, all parties have been able to draw various lessons. However, I am sure that, as they knocked on doors, all parties had to remind people that every vote can make a difference.

We saw a very concrete example of this during the last election, and it is something that will probably set a precedent for the future. We need to remind people that, even if they may sometimes think otherwise, their vote can have a significant impact.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague.

I served on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for over two years. Yes, we had begun considering this issue before any foreign interference occurred. It took up some 70 meetings; I remember it like it was yesterday.

My question is very simple. I am surprised, even disappointed, when we talk about loopholes for foreign funds. When we seek impartiality and transparency, what are the consequences of not being able to block money that we cannot detect?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She hit the nail on the head. The problem of interference stems from an inability to identify the source. One thing became clear in committee, and that is the fact that, unfortunately, we will always be one step behind. Hostile foreign actors will always have vast resources at their disposal that allow them to find legal loopholes.

The problem is that when we are aware of these loopholes and choose not to close them, we become partly responsible for our own misfortune. I gave some examples, including allowing a third party to use up to 10% of its own funds to conduct activities during an election campaign. A third-party organization could have $200 million in the bank from its own funds, which could come from the United States, China, or anywhere. That still amounts to $20 million that it can use with impunity, rather than having to go through a separate bank account where only Canadian funds would be used.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are a bit disappointed that the Liberals voted against some of our amendments. I think that will affect how we will vote.

I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois member thinks of some of these amendments, particularly those aimed at strengthening the security of ballot boxes, as well as the measures designed to close loopholes that allow third parties to advertise on behalf of one party or another.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question in excellent French. I am very grateful for that.

As for the funding loophole, I previously talked about it when I was answering my colleague's question.

In terms of the security of the ballot boxes, this was a Conservative amendment that was very interesting on the substance, but not as interesting in form, in our opinion, because it wanted to include something very specific into the Elections Act to protect ballot boxes. If memory serves, I remember, for example, that the clause provided for the use of a three-point locking system, along with video surveillance. This is something that, in our opinion, should be in the regulations instead, which allow for much more flexibility.

Including the principle of the security of ballot boxes is something that could have been done by amending the act. However, very specific proposals were made, for example, with regard to using a three-point locking system. In five years, that may be a completely outdated technology. We would then be stuck with an election law that is no longer up to date, which would impose on the party something that no longer works and that cannot be changed other than through a legislative amendment. However, in that context, the regulations would have allowed for more flexibility.

It was a really great idea. The way it was carried out might have warranted a different approach. That is why we voted against it. It was not the principle that we took issue with, but rather the way it was handled.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would expand on something. We have talked about deepfakes, which she made reference to, and social media, and the potential harms. Does the Bloc have anything to suggest that goes beyond what is in the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had other suggestions. The questions were put to the witnesses. We were coming back to the idea that technology advances so quickly that we are always lagging behind, which is why it is perhaps important to review the legislation on a regular basis.

The law's current provisions serve a legitimate purpose, but I still get the sense it will never be enough. That is why it is so important for members and political actors not to add fuel to the fire by spreading disinformation, which, unfortunately, is often used to feed deepfakes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Ponoka—Didsbury

In Canada, we are privileged to have a strong and internationally recognized electoral system. Canadian democracy is among the most stable and resilient in the world, and the Canada Elections Act is recognized for its robust safeguards, strict rules on political financing and high standards of transparency.

In addition to this solid framework, the strength of our electoral system also lies in its ability to evolve. The rules that protect our elections must adapt to the realities of our time. Today, as we can see throughout the world, democracies face growing threats, whether through the malicious use of technology, foreign interference, disinformation or other attempts to undermine public confidence in democratic processes.

To maintain Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our elections, it is therefore essential to continue strengthening the mechanisms that protect our democratic process. Public trust is the very foundation of democratic stability, and we must strive to preserve and strengthen that confidence at all times.

That is why Bill C-25 proposes several practical measures to address current challenges, including addressing the problem of excessively long ballots, banning deepfakes of election officials, further protecting the integrity of leadership and nomination races, enhancing measures to prevent foreign interference, strengthening the enforcement of the act and improving federal requirements for the protection of personal information by federal political parties.

These amendments did not come out of nowhere. They are well reasoned and based on recommendations made by experts during the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, as well as by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections.

Over the next several minutes, I am going to review some of the measures set out in this bill and try to explain why I think they are important and why we should support them.

The bill contains measures that seek to prevent excessively long ballots. We will achieve that by allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form per riding and by requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent.

Why are we doing that? It is because, over the past few years, we have seen a group of activists disrupting elections. Dozens of candidates in one riding had the same official agent and their nomination forms were signed by the same people. In some cases, we ended up with dozens of nominations for people who had no real intention of participating in the democratic process and who were really only trying to disrupt the democratic process that we want to protect.

Let me give a few examples. In the last election in Terrebonne, nearly 40 out of 48 candidates were people who had no real intention of campaigning. As a result, instead of a normal ballot, we ended up with a blank ballot. In Battle River—Crowfoot, 200 out of 214 candidates were not really serious ones. In LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, during a by-election two years ago, we ended up with 91 candidates and a ballot that was a metre long.

This has real consequences because it makes it harder for some people to participate. When voters are given a blank ballot and there are people who struggle with literacy or have difficulty writing, it makes it harder for them to participate in this democratic process. It shows a lack of respect for these voters. It also shows a lack of consideration for well-intentioned candidates who want to represent their community.

I believe these changes strike the right balance between preventing candidacies intended solely to disrupt the elections and ensuring that serious candidates are allowed to run. By serious candidates, I am referring not only to those representing the major political parties in the House, but also, of course, to independent candidates who are genuinely committed to their communities and wish to represent them, as well as candidates from smaller political parties.

The rules will not prevent this type of candidacy, since people will only need to have a single agent and collect the required number of signatures. With these changes, I think we have struck a good balance that will prevent excessively long ballots while still allowing serious candidates to run in elections.

The bill also provides for various safeguards, particularly against the malicious use of new technologies in elections. As we know, various technologies are emerging, including artificial intelligence, and it is becoming increasingly easy to impersonate people online. For example, with AI, people can create videos in which they pretend to be someone else. People can be made to say things that they never actually said. In the context of an election, that can be dangerous and highly problematic.

Imagine a candidate in an election. Someone makes a video in which the candidate appears to say all sorts of nonsense, and then posts it on social media. People who see that video might decide not to vote for that candidate. Someone could also make a fake video to impersonate an election official. For example, someone could impersonate the Chief Electoral Officer and give false information about the location of the polling station, the date of the election or the instructions to follow in order to vote. That could undermine the democratic process. That is why we are going to ban deepfakes.

We will also strengthen safeguards for the use of IT systems in elections. We will tighten the rules on hacking or tampering with IT systems and databases with the aim of disrupting an election. As has already been mentioned, the issues are changing, and technologies are evolving. It is important that our regulatory framework keep pace and reflect the times we are in.

We will also put stricter rules in place regarding political financing. Canada has one of the strongest political financing systems in the world. Since we are always looking to improve, we are going to introduce certain new rules to strengthen the system, particularly with regard to preventing foreign interference. This is an issue that has garnered significant attention in recent years. There was a commission on the subject. We have also seen several democracies around the world face foreign interference issues. We therefore want to close all possible avenues for foreign financing that could interfere with our democratic processes in Canada.

For example, we will prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions. This includes, for example, contributions made using cryptocurrency, prepaid cards or other forms of prepaid payment. It is not possible to clearly identify who is behind these contributions. We want to prevent foreign agents from making contributions using cryptocurrency or other forms of unidentified payment, for example.

We will also prevent third parties, organizations, businesses, unions, or citizens who are not candidates, from organizing regulated political or election-related activities, such as election advertising or partisan activities, and accepting untraceable contributions. That way, it will not be possible to circumvent the rules. For example, cryptocurrencies cannot be used to fund an organization that would then finance partisan activities. We are shutting down those avenues as well.

We will explicitly prohibit foreign actors from funding regulated activities, such as partisan activities or election advertising, carried out through third parties in Canada. These contributions must come exclusively from Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

In our democracy, there are other key moments besides general elections. One example is leadership races within political parties. These can have a major impact on our democracy. Consider the leadership races to elect the new leader of the official opposition or the next prime minister. These are events that have tangible consequences.

Nomination contests also come to mind. When several candidates in a riding want to stand for the same party, a nomination contest is arranged. These processes are also watershed moments in our democratic system, and we are going to strengthen the rules to better protect them.

In fact, a number of rules that already apply to general elections will now apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests. I am referring to rules about preventing foreign influence. For example, third parties will not be able to accept foreign funds to arrange nomination race activities. Other rules relate to the prevention of intimidation, bribery and identity theft. All of these procedures, already in use for general elections, will also apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests.

Through these carefully crafted measures, all based on assessments and consultations, we will strengthen our democratic system which, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, is already very strong.

I believe that these changes will help maintain Canadians' trust in our democratic institutions. Accomplishing this work is essential.

I think most of my colleagues in the House share that opinion, and I look forward to seeing Bill C-25 receive royal assent.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this.

I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely?

My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100. However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500.

How is it that this limit has not been lowered?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Canada's political financing system is among the strongest in the world. When we compare ourselves to other democracies, we see that there are already several mechanisms in place to ensure that funding actually comes from Canadian citizens.

We will close off the various avenues that could allow for foreign influence. Contribution limits are already in place. Canadian citizens have to be the ones contributing to political parties. We have a rigorous framework.

Bill C-25, which is based on various recommendations from experts, will allow us to make this framework even more rigorous in order to ensure the integrity of our elections.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech.

Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill? I would also like to hear him speak about the collaboration that made it possible to move this bill forward in a very short time.