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.

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud.

Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music.

With that out of the way, I will return to today's topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem.

I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it.

However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter's privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures.

This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations.

The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing.

The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name.

The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic.

As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”.

I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750.

As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important.

There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding.

I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding.

It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground.

That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech.

He talked about how big some ridings are. I know that he is known for being very good about travelling around to different parts of his riding. Everyone there knows him and loves him.

He also talked about political financing. Would this bill not have been a good opportunity to review our political financing system, which is not particularly fair to people who want to participate constructively in the democratic debate?

I would like him to elaborate on that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north.

I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists.

That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

The idea of public funding is really important. He said that Quebec does it. Canada did it at one time but does not do it now.

Can he explain again how Canada could learn from what Quebec is doing in terms of public funding?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this.

Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it.

I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest.

Can my colleague elaborate on that?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map.

As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries.

In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country.

However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives.

We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec's electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then.

Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L'Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L'Assomption RCM. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding.

However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive.

I would like to know what my colleague suggests.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony.

I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding.

There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public's vote would be better represented in Parliament.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not born in Canada, but Canada is my adopted home. It is a place that I am very loyal to and committed to. As the member of Parliament representing the beautiful riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, which is so diverse, with over 43 languages spoken there, I can talk about Bill C-25 and the importance of not just the perception of having free and fair elections but the actuality of it and making sure that Canadians have faith within our democracy.

Canadians depend on free and fair elections. They need to be confident in our electoral process, confident that they can choose leaders who will prioritize communities here in Canada, including in Mississauga—Erin Mills. This is the importance of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.

As the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, I am proud to represent one of the most diverse communities in the country. One fact that unites all citizens in my riding is that democracy depends on trust. Canadians want to know that our elections are fair, that the information they receive is real, that ill-intentioned actors cannot manipulate our system and that the people who participate in public life can do so with confidence.

This is why the bill matters. In Mississauga—Erin Mills, families, newcomers, students, seniors and small businesses all bring different experiences and different perspectives to our democracy, but they share a common expectation, and that is that our institutions will protect the integrity of our vote and our democracy. They expect laws that keep pace with modern threats, whether those threats come in the form of foreign interference, digital deception, dark money or intimidation aimed at political candidates.

One practical problem the bill would address is the issue of unduly long ballots. In any riding with a large and busy electorate, including Mississauga—Erin Mills, a ballot that is intentionally overloaded does not strengthen our democracy. It creates confusion for voters, increases the burden on election workers and slows down the counting process.

That is why Bill C-25 proposes measures to reduce unduly long ballots, including allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form and requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent. These may sound like technical amendments, but for constituents who simply want an election process that is orderly, accessible and credible, these are important protections.

The bill also responds to a newer and growing threat, which is digital impersonation and deepfakes. In many Canadian communities, and especially in Mississauga—Erin Mills, where residents are highly connected, receive information across many platforms and in many languages and often rely on digital communication to follow public affairs, the spread of false content can be especially damaging.

A vital aspect of Bill C-25 is the creation of a new offence against these impersonations. It would also create a new offence against intentionally spreading false information about election processes or the voting process when someone knows it is false and intends to disrupt the conduct of an election or affect its results. This is not about limiting legitimate debate. It is about protecting the public from deliberate deception.

The bill would also close important gaps by extending key election-related offences beyond the formal election period and into nomination and leadership contests. This matters because democratic integrity does not begin once a writ is dropped. In ridings like mine, where many people are politically engaged long before election day, these earlier stages of the process also deserve protection and scrutiny.

Bill C-25 would extend existing offences such as undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, intimidation, impersonation, misleading publications, unauthorized computer use and broadcasting outside Canada. They also apply to nomination and leadership contests. This is a crucial reform because vulnerabilities in those contests can undermine confidence in the entire democratic process.

The bill would also strengthen political financing rules, because Canadians want to know that their democracy is not being distorted by hidden or foreign money. Constituents expect transparency, accountability and fairness. They do not want anonymous or untraceable financial channels that are used to influence politics behind the scenes. Bill C-25 would prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions, such as cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards, money orders and other prepaid products.

It would strengthen restrictions on third parties and foreign entities involved in regulated political activities. It would further ensure that third parties can pay for regulated political activities only with contributions from Canadian citizens and permanent residents or with their own money under limited conditions, while also barring foreign entities from contributing property or other services to those activities. That matters, because confidence in democracy is weakened when people believe money moves government illicitly.

This bill also responds to the need for stronger enforcement. Canadians across the country want to know that election law is not only well written but also actually enforceable. This legislation would expand accountability to include those who are party to a violation, as well as those who conspire, attempt, advise or act as accessories after the fact. It would expand the administrative monetary penalty regime, increase maximum penalties and provide the commissioner of Canada elections with stronger tools to summon witnesses, compel evidence under oath and require the production or preservation of relevant documents. These measures are important, because a law without effective enforcement is not a real safeguard.

There is another aspect of this bill that is especially relevant to public life today, and that is physical security and personal information. In an era when harassment can spread quickly online and personal information can be misused in harmful ways, many people are understandably hesitant to participate in politics. That concern is real in every part of our country. People in my riding want a democracy that is open, but they also want one that is safe. They want candidates, volunteers, election workers and community leaders to be able to take part without fearing that their home address, personal information or security will be carelessly exposed.

Bill C-25 takes tangible steps in that direction. It would limit the publication of personal address information for returning officers, remove the requirement for a five-day advance notice of regulated fundraising events, limit the location details in post-event reports, increase reimbursement for eligible personal security expenses and establish stronger privacy policy requirements for federal political parties. Those privacy measures include requiring safeguards proportionate to the sensitivity of the information, appropriate steps in the event of a breach, equivalent protection when information is transferred and prohibitions on selling personal information or providing false or misleading information about why it is being collected. For citizens who care deeply about privacy, security and responsible public institutions, these are not minor administrative details; they are essential to our democratic confidence.

This bill is also important because it is grounded in expert recommendations. The measures in Bill C-25 respond to recommendations from the public inquiry into foreign interference, from the Chief Electoral Officer and from the commissioner of Canada elections, and build on measures that had previously been proposed in a former bill, Bill C-65. This matters because protecting democracy should not be a partisan reflex. It should be a careful, evidence-based effort in order for us to ensure that our laws remain responsive to evolving threats, which are very real.

Our constituents understand that democracy is strongest when people trust both the process and the institutions behind it. They want to know that ballots are manageable, that disinformation will be confronted, that foreign influence and foreign interference will be kept out, that personal information will be protected and that those who break election law will face meaningful consequences.

Bill C-25 would advance that work. It would protect the vote, the process and participants, and it would help protect the public trust that holds our democracy together. For those reasons, I am very proud to support the strong and free elections act, Bill C-25.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)