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

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know sometimes there is resistance to listening to me speak. Could we just ask once again if there was unanimous consent, as we have been authorized and provided approval for it. We would ask for unanimous consent to share the first speech.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have obtained the unanimous consent of the House to share my time.

I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C‑25, the strong and free elections act.

Bill C‑25 makes changes to the Canada Elections Act that will improve the strength and resilience of Canada's electoral system. As we all know, one of the pillars of our democracy is our electoral system, and the Canada Elections Act is the foundation of that system. The act is already recognized around the world for its rigorous administrative procedures, robust political financing regime and strict spending limits. However, we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to the growing threats to elections that aim to undermine trust in our democratic electoral processes. Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time.

Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from persistent threats, regardless of the circumstances.

That is why, in keeping with this long-standing tradition of continually improving the Canada Elections Act, our government is proposing priority amendments to address these threats. It is essential that we draw on the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on the recommendations that were made during the public inquiry into foreign interference, as well as those that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections.

Bill C-25 proposes to further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through several new measures. Allow me to elaborate a bit on those. As I mentioned at the outset, interference in elections can occur at any point, and it is not just in elections. Bill C-25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, it would expand the prohibitions regarding undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications that claim to come from someone that they are not, and broadcasting outside Canada with the intent to unduly influence voters to apply at any time, not just during the election period. This protection would also be applied to nomination and leadership contests.

In addition, Bill C-25 extends the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that bad actors operating outside Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for their illegal acts.

Bill C‑25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and covert money from entering our democratic system.

This includes prohibiting the use of contributions in the form of cryptoassets and prepaid money orders for all activities conducted by political actors or for regulated activities conducted by third parties.

It is important to note that under Bill C‑25, third parties will only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. However, we understand, as we have heard at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that not all third parties receive contributions and that some may wish to use their own revenues to cover regulated expenses. In this case, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual funds will be able to use their own funds to finance regulated activities.

These amendments will strengthen transparency regarding the source of funds and will mitigate the risk of foreign and covert funds interfering in our elections, without depriving third parties acting in good faith of the ability to exercise their right to participate in the democratic process.

The next point I want to highlight this evening is how Bill C-25 tackles the problem of disinformation. Disinformation is a key tactic aimed at stoking division and eroding public trust in all of our democratic processes. Disinformation always seeks to manipulate voters through false information that is deliberately disseminated, often online.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 would strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the deliberate dissemination of false information regarding an election or the electoral process with the intent to interfere with the conduct or results of an election, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy.

Another source of misinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 would also be addressing. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries several risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence has become increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI such as deepfakes can pose significant threats. To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 would amend the prohibition on impersonation to cover video and audio manipulation, such as deepfakes, and extend its application to nomination and leadership candidates, who are also vulnerable to such threats.

When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see a ballot that lists the candidates who have a legitimate desire to stand for election and to represent their constituents if elected. That is a fundamental principle of our system of government. However, this is not the case in ridings targeted by those seeking to create excessively long ballots. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of people who have neither the desire nor the intention to ever represent the voters' interests.

Not only do these long ballots pose significant accessibility issues for voters and election officials, particularly those with disabilities, but they can also delay vote counting. That is what we heard during the study on unduly long ballots conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am therefore pleased to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 is fully in line with all of the committee's legislative recommendations. I would add that this is one of the most robust and collaborative processes I have seen to date.

At a time when security is a growing concern within our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new safeguards. For example, the home addresses of returning officers will no longer be made public; candidates will receive higher reimbursements for their personal security expenses; and the rules governing regulated fundraising activities will be amended.

The last part of the bill I would like to highlight concerns the important mandate of the independent commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-25 will strengthen the tools available to the commissioner to fulfill this mandate.

In closing, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, would further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through targeted, priority amendments that were recommended by experts and would ensure that our legislative framework remains resilient in a consistently evolving threat environment.

I urge my colleagues and all members of the House to support this really important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to close significant loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into registered third parties. The bill would fail to close those loopholes.

Why did the government refuse to close those loopholes? Why would this bill, if it goes forward, allow for foreign money to continue to be funnelled into third parties to influence Canadian elections?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague sits on the committee with me. We have had this conversation extensively. We agree that the 10% in the bill would actually prevent foreign money from going into our elections. The reporting measures in this bill have been recommended by experts. We believe these are strong measures to make sure we can keep track of where foreign money is coming from and to make sure Canadians understand where funds are coming from that go into our elections.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her speech.

From the outset, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25 for a number of reasons. In her speech, my colleague mentioned some of the provisions that Bill C-25 would introduce, including prohibiting individuals from falsely representing themselves to be someone they are not. The current Prime Minister got elected by claiming to be the only one capable of standing up to Donald Trump in negotiations with the United States. The record of the past year suggests that is totally far-fetched, it is false, and we can see that.

According to my colleague, does that mean that, under the provisions of Bill C-25, the Prime Minister himself would be in violation of the law?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I often appreciate the questions asked by my colleague opposite. He usually seems quite reasonable. We have been staying here later than usual for the past few days. I think that a bit of fatigue is setting in.

I am sure he will have other opportunities to ask rather more serious questions.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Bill C‑25 aims to strengthen and secure the electoral process, particularly by fighting foreign interference and other emerging threats.

I would like my colleague to explain why it was so important to make these changes and follow through on this bill.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. She took part in a number of discussions with experts and witnesses that highlighted the importance of protecting our elections.

As I mentioned earlier, we are following the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and other experts. The world is changing. We know that we already have a robust system, but we have to keep putting security measures in place to protect our elections and maintain Canadians' trust in our institutions.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary explained in her very clear speech, Bill C-25 would create new rules around knowingly false or misleading election information. I have been doing some reading because the Prime Minister is a fan of Václav Havel. I learned that his first full-length play that was ever publicly performed is quite relevant to this debate. It is entitled The Garden Party. It warns us about systems where official language becomes so polished and circular that people stop asking what is actually true, and people become sort of fluent in a kind of nonsense.

I am wondering if the member could elaborate on the exact guardrails that she would support to make sure the bill targets deception and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to cut off the member to give the hon. deputy government House leader a chance to respond.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I used to be a staffer here. I remember a time when we all used our time in the House to inform Canadians, not mislead them, not switch information to sound like what it is not. I really want us to get back to that place.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25, which is an encouraging piece of legislation.

I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference.

Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today.

Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o'clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted.

Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously. That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate.

Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20, building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion.

They wanted to call it quits early yesterday. All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives' desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time.

Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance? I understand that broad breadth is given with respect to our debates, but this has nothing to do with Bill C-25.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

As the member knows, members have wide latitude during debate to make commentary. I am sure the member was leading it back to Bill C-25.

I will let the parliamentary secretary continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25, as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20, dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast.

Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again. They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate.

After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate. Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is well into his speech and I have yet to hear one word about Bill C-25.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more relevant to a debate than talking about the way other members in the House have been participating in that debate.

[An hon. member]

That is not a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is actually a point of order. God, you do not even know what you are talking about.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

To the chief government whip, through the Chair, please.

Members have wide latitude during debate to speak about whatever matters, ancillary or connected to a particular piece of legislation. I think the parliamentary secretary was returning to the bill, so I will let him finish.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting.

On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing.

Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting.

One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation.

It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot. The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate.

Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections.

There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here we have on display peak Liberal hypocrisy. Only the member for Winnipeg North can spend his entire speech complaining about wasting time instead of actually doing something besides wasting time and addressing Bill C‑25.

There were issues around foreign interference that the Liberals knew about in one of their ridings, where Han Dong was chosen as a Liberal candidate. It was noted in the Hogue commission.

Why is there nothing in Bill C‑25 that would address the foreign interference in so many Liberal nominations?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates.

I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.

Bill C‑25—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

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.

Third Reading

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 78(3), commonly known as time allocation, is currently the Liberals' favourite dish. What we just witnessed is something that the Liberals have now done multiple times. Bill C‑25 is intended to increase public trust in Parliament and its institutions by preventing excessively long ballots, which can cause confusion.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to tell us whether he truly believes that this is the way to strengthen public trust in Parliament. What his government is currently doing is just the opposite: It is quashing debate by resorting to time allocation for one bill after another and even for the economic update.

I would like my college to tell me explicitly whether he thinks this will strengthen public trust in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, time allocation is absolutely necessary for the government to use because of the way the Conservative Party of Canada is treating legislation. If we did not have that tool, legislation would never pass. We can see the games the Conservatives play consistently, and this evening is a great example of that. They have been using adjournment motions even though they had agreed to sit late in the evening.

At the end of the day, it is a question of whether are we going to deliver for Canadians as an assembly. Our answer to that question is yes, and the only way we can do that is by bringing in time allocation, because the Conservatives fully intend to prevent the government from passing legislation. Any simple grade 12 class would be able to prevent things in the House.

It is an issue of serving Canadians first and foremost, and we will do what it takes in order to deliver on our commitments to Canadians.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the world in 2026 is much different from just a few years ago. The world has changed, and we must change with it. We must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world.

I would like to hear from my colleague about how the bill would expand prohibition on undue foreign influence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There are a number of initiatives in the bill. That is one of the reasons I highlighted the two areas: foreign interference and having the panel not only during an election but year-round between elections. That is an essential aspect of the legislation.

Worldwide, Elections Canada is seen as a first-rate, independent election system, and it is something we should all be very proud of. It is constantly asked to make presentations to other jurisdictions on how to make democracy work well in a country. Elections Canada is a wonderful ambassador for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome. Among them are measures to counter the undemocratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee, which caused significant disruption in a number of ridings in the last election and in several by-elections by effectively flooding the ballot with fake candidates. This was all for the purpose of sowing confusion, making it more difficult for Elections Canada to administer elections and tabulate the vote, and undermining general public confidence in the voting process.

This bill contains measures the Conservatives called for quite some time ago. It took the government quite some time to finally move forward with legislation to address those gaps and those loopholes that were taken advantage of by the longest ballot committee, but this bill does that, and we welcome those measures. Additionally, we welcome measures in the bill to establish new offences and to extend other offences to leadership races and nomination races to counter foreign interference.

The bill would also provide needed new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections and increase administrative monetary penalties to give those penalties some teeth with respect to contraventions of the act by individuals and organizations. I would observe, however, that I have some concerns with respect to the powers that are being given to the commissioner insofar as the commissioner would have the power to compel evidence without judicial authorization.

I would also note that when one looks at those powers, combined with the powers to impose administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for organizations and entities, it begs the question of whether there is, in fact too, much discretion being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. In that regard, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, if, in fact, a contravention reached the level of imposing a $100,000 fine, it would seem to me that in the circumstances, the better course would be for the commissioner to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions to proceed by way of criminal prosecution.

While there are measures in this bill that the Conservatives broadly support, it is far from a perfect bill. There are measures that could have been included in this bill that would have gone a lot further toward strengthening the Canada Elections Act, strengthening the integrity of our voting process and safeguarding our elections, which the Liberals unfortunately did not include.

I also have significant concerns about the failure of the Liberals to close well-recognized loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into third parties to influence voters at election time. Fundamental to our democracy is how elections must be decided by Canadians, and Canadians alone. Unfortunately, what we have in this country, which we have had for years, are foreign interests and foreign governments that have used third parties to influence our elections.

There are two well-recognized loopholes. One is a melding loophole, wherein certain contributions, including foreign contributions, are treated as part of the general revenue of a third party that can in turn then be used for regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods. The other loophole is one whereby foreign funds are treated as Canadian funds to third parties. In that regard, I would note that if, for example, foreign entity A transfers funds to Canadian entity B, and Canadian entity B transfers those funds to a third party, at present, those funds are treated as funds coming from Canadian entity B, even though the true source of those funds is foreign.

This loophole is not a hypothetical loophole. In 2017, I brought forward a complaint to the commissioner of Canada elections with respect to $700,000 U.S. that was funnelled from the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation to a British Columbia entity. That entity then disbursed the $700,000 U.S. to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates. The commissioner of Canada elections, in response to my complaint, advised that there were no contraventions of the act, or at least no contraventions that could be made out, and the reason for that is this loophole that presently exists.

I have to say, I think Canadians would be alarmed that it is, in fact, that easy for foreign interests and foreign governments, with witting third parties, frankly, to use foreign funds to influence how Canadians vote and what issues are brought to their attention in the lead-up to and during an election.

It is completely unacceptable that the Liberals have been aware of these loopholes for 10 years now. In fact, they benefited from these loopholes. They benefited from the use of foreign money, just as the Liberals benefited from Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and have, up until now, refused to take action.

Before I say what this bill would do, I would just add that the loopholes I am speaking about are ones that have been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. I raised these loopholes multiple times with the Chief Electoral Officer when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. He also acknowledged these precise loopholes in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, and he called for those loopholes to be closed.

This bill purports to close those loopholes, and it would do so with a general requirement. It would require third parties to set up a separate bank account, and the funds going into it can come only from individual Canadians. This would be a positive measure. It is one that we have long called for. It would address issues around foreign interference and foreign influence insofar as the funds would be from individual Canadians.

The bill would provide much needed transparency. We would be able to more easily track and see exactly who is donating to third parties that, in turn, seek to influence Canadians in the lead-up to and during elections. It would also treat third parties on par, more or less, with political parties insofar as political parties can use contributions only from individual Canadians. This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.

If that is good, it begs the question, “What is problematic?” It is problematic that this would be a general rule, but there is a big exception contained in the bill, which is that third parties may continue to use their own funds and their own general revenue. In other words, they would not have to set up an individual bank account and they would not be limited to individual contributions, provided that the contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period. In such a case, funds used by the third party would be treated as commingled, whatever the source.

That is not my interpretation. When I posed a question to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, and asked him how this exception would work and exactly what funds third parties would be able to use, he said in his answer, “They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds.”

If a third party can use contributions coming from its own revenue, whatever the source, and such funds are commingled, then it follows that commingled funds could be foreign funds. When I raised that issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, he conceded that “the practical challenge is true there as well.” The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that, yes, effectively, where this exception applies, third parties would be able to use foreign funds.

As a result, the bill would close loopholes with respect to the use of foreign funds, but then create a new loophole. If it does not create a completely new loophole, it would continue the loophole around the melding or commingling of funds, including foreign funds.

The Liberals will say this is an exception, not the rule, and it would only apply if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue, meaning that it should not apply to very many third parties. However, who is to say this is so, and who is to say 10% or less of a third party's revenues, being contributions, is an insignificant amount of money? There are many third parties that have tens of millions of dollars, so 10% could amount to millions of dollars of foreign funds.

I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the general rule of having to set up individual bank accounts and relying exclusively on the contributions of individual Canadians, whereas some of the bigger, more influential third parties would continue to be able to get away with using their own funds, including possibly and likely foreign funds in some cases.

It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer has supported this type of an exception, and in that respect, the government has adopted what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended. I can see that point, but I respectfully disagree, and I have made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that I disagree with his position. I have challenged him on his position on a number of occasions. The argument that he has put is that there are charter issues around freedom of speech.

However, there is no case authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has cited. The best he has offered and the best the Liberals have offered is this vague argument. It is a vague argument notwithstanding, by the way, that when this issue was presented at committee, a number of witnesses, including an esteemed constitutional lawyer, including Professor Lori Turnbull and including Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, said that, yes, this loophole, this exception, would result in foreign funding and that, given the very serious issues around foreign interference, this loophole would be taken advantage of by foreign actors, including hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime. As I noted, it has been taken advantage of by other groups in not necessarily hostile foreign states, but in other states such as the United States, like through the Tides Foundation.

The position we took is to get rid of the exception, create an equal playing field for all third parties and require every third party to set up an individual bank account. Our position was to require that all third parties, without exception, could only accept contributions from individual Canadians. That would be simple, it would be fair, it would be transparent and from an administrative and enforcement standpoint, it would be far better and far easier than the complicated framework or scheme set up by this legislation in respect of setting a threshold of contributions that constitutes 10% or less of the third party's revenue and that the period be in the year prior to the pre-election period.

If one were to take at face value the charter issues that have been, and again I underscore the word “vaguely”, cited, I would question how this exception would satisfy them. If these charter issues are so real and so pressing, then why is it that with this legislation, the Liberals would be requiring that, as a general rule, third parties set up an individual bank account that accepts only contributions from individual Canadians. If that infringes upon—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. The member's time for debate has concluded.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been told I have unlimited time. I did not split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member had 20 minutes. That was the time that was allotted.

[An hon. member]

I know you could go two hours.

[An hon. member]

Sit down. The Speaker is up.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the members to the right of me. I can handle the responsibilities.

The member did have a 20-minute slot. I am verifying with the clerks here, and they are saying that is correct. It is a 20-minute slot with 10 minutes of questions and comments.

I have risen. There was 20 minutes. The member has concluded.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague, and I know how much time he has spent on this particular bill as well. On the idea of controlling the money and all of that, I would be interested to hear what other amendment or change my colleague thinks could be done that would improve the bill and answer the concerns that he has.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed was simply to remove the exception and simply to require that all third parties be required to set up an individual bank account and that they only be able to receive contributions from individual Canadians. We believe that would be charter-compliant and that it would, to the greatest extent possible, close loopholes around foreign funding and foreign influence through third parties.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the next speaker for questions and comments, I just want to clarify what is written in the Standing Orders.

I am going to switch to English, just to make sure the member understands.

Regarding the length of speeches at third reading stage, pursuant to Standing Orders 43 and 74 the first member of each recognized party in the first round of speeches has 20 minutes maximum, and speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period. Those are Standing Orders 43 and 74, to clarify for all members and make sure all members understand. There are lots of standing orders and very many numbers. It is easy to confuse them, but that is the rule.

The hon. member for Rimouski—La Matapédia.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. My colleague did not get to finish his speech, but I imagine he had a great deal more to say. It is actually quite remarkable that Bill C-25, which amends an act, also changes the names of certain ridings.

It has been over a year and a half since the last election. I made a promise to my constituents to give the riding a name that better represents it. I wanted it to be called Rimouski—Neigette—La Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques. The current name, Rimouski—La Matapédia, does not reflect the entire territory.

I would simply like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees, based on his experience, that it would have made more sense not to wait a year and a half before changing the riding names. This work could have been done a long time ago, rather than putting it off indefinitely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. This could have been done sooner. The government did not need to wait a year and a half to do this. Also, I would note that the name change that the member has proposed and that would be changed through this bill would, I believe, restore what had been the name of the riding at one time.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed to be rising to speak before the House, given that the parliamentary secretary across the way criticized me just a short while ago for moving to adjourn the debate. However, we are now learning that it was actually the Prime Minister who did so, according to a Radio-Canada article that was just published. Allow me to read an extract:

Vacation time has (already) started in Ottawa

The members of the House of Commons are on vacation. Mark Carney's government has announced that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order.

Members may not refer to the Prime Minister by name, even in a quote.

The member may finish his question or comment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I should have said that the Liberal Prime Minister's government “has announced that the House has adjourned for the summer”.

Can my colleague, who is the critic for institutions, explain to me why we are still debating here in the House when the Liberal Prime Minister has announced that the House has already adjourned for the summer? I am completely baffled. Did he, by any chance, intend to adjourn the House at the end of the day? I would like my colleague to clarify that.

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

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think it underscores the fact that the Prime Minister is AWOL when it comes to this House. It underscores how disconnected he is from the business of this House and how little attention he pays to the business of this House. Perhaps he should consider showing up for once.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a little much. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister actually voted on the silliness of the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party did not even show up. In fact, 13% of the caucus—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. This has been dealt with before. Members cannot make a reference to the presence or absence of a member, including in the past. That cannot be done in the House.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to find a different way of saying what he wants to say, and then we will continue with questions and comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 has received quite a bit of support. We saw that support at the standing committee. There were no amendments brought forward at report stage. It would appear to me that the Conservatives are supportive of passing the legislation, which is a good thing. The government is providing us the opportunity tonight to ensure we at least have some debate.

I wonder if the member could just talk about what he feels is actually, generally speaking, positive legislation that has received overwhelming support, whether from Elections Canada, to a certain degree, or members of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree. There are many measures in this bill that we support, that we have long called for. We have worked with the government, getting it through second reading stage, over to the procedure and House affairs committee.

We brought forward some amendments where I think there was a missed opportunity, however. There was an opportunity to fully close well-identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding to third parties. That is something that is unacceptable that needs to be corrected. Those loopholes do need to be closed.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the members opposite are unaware of the news that the House has apparently adjourned, according to the Liberal Prime Minister. I therefore seek unanimous consent to table the Radio-Canada article to inform them of the decision that the Prime Minister seems to have made without telling them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a shame there is no unanimous consent. We would never have turned down an opportunity to be educated and informed. I do not understand why they denied it. It would have been instructive.

Returning to the speech by my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River, whose thoroughness I appreciate, there is something in Bill C-25 that concerns me somewhat.

I agree that we should tighten the parameters a little, particularly when it comes to the endorsing candidates. However, when we collect signatures for a nomination form, which many of us have done, we make a point of telling people that this is not an endorsement of the candidate or the party. It is a recognition that this person is eligible to stand as a candidate in an election. In proposing this measure, which prevents people from signing multiple nomination forms in the same election, it seems to me that we are going against that principle in a way. Saying that people can only sign one form is a bit like saying that by signing a nomination form, that person is endorsing that particular candidate. I feel that this measure may go a bit too far.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. The member does raise a good point, insofar as the bill would prohibit someone from signing more than one nomination form.

There are arguments counter to that amendment in the bill. However, I would argue that on balance it is a reasonable amendment to the Canada Elections Act, preventing the longest ballot committee and other such bad actors from engaging in such activities in the future. The objective or the purpose of the act is that a candidate must have the endorsement or support of 100 electors, not for 100 electors to flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. I think, given what we have seen, in terms of the disruption to our elections, this is a reasonable amendment.

As for informing electors who might be inclined to sign more than one nomination form, there are measures that can be taken and that I believe Elections Canada will undertake, such as providing on the nomination form a reminder that an individual can only sign one candidate's nomination form.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just received this report that the House has adjourned or maybe will adjourn in the near future. I wonder if the member can comment on what the consequences of that would be for summer by-elections, particularly if this bill is not passed, but even if it is passed, in terms of issues that Canadians really care about, like foreign interference?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House adjourned, I guess the government would have just capitulated on getting through all of the legislation that it has had before us this entire spring.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to provide some assurance to my Conservative colleagues, it is the government's full intention to continue to sit until we have a substantial aspect of our legislative agenda passed. That is absolutely critical. Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, when we talk about the summer, we will continue to work hard throughout the summer. I can assure members of that.

I know I plan to work very hard for my constituents, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you too have some plans to work through this summer. We love our job as members of Parliament and working hard for our constituents. I, for one, like the Prime Minister and the government, will continue to push to get our legislative agenda—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance to the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the government works to get its legislation through, we in the official opposition will discharge our responsibility, which is to hold the government to account and to carefully scrutinize legislation before this House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at this point, if you canvass the House, I suspect you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 12:35 a.m.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to make sure that it is midnight tonight and not midnight in September.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

If the parliamentary secretary wants to, the Speaker can allow members to continue debate.

Did the parliamentary secretary ask for unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I am not trying to back up days here. I would love to be able to do that, but for now it is at 12:35 a.m., which is in another two hours and a bit.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 10 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are leaving for what we hope are greener pastures. I imagine most of them are heading to committee meetings. Hopefully they will go well. There are not many meetings left before the session ends.

I would like to say a few words about Bill C-25. Since we are nearing the end of the process having debated it in the House and discussed it at length in committee, I am not going to leave people in suspense. The Bloc is going to vote in favour of Bill C-25, which has moved forward with relative consensus in both the House and in committee. Everything went smoothly, that much is true. Furthermore, once I have outlined the bill's objectives, I will highlight its strengths. I will save the less positive aspects for last, because there are some.

Bill C-25 amends the Canada Elections Act and addresses various issues.

More specifically, it seeks to prevent large numbers of candidates from registering, as the protesters from the longest ballot committee have done. The hope is that we avoid ending up with ballots featuring 290 candidates that have to be unfolded like road maps and clog up the ballot boxes. We have worked to find solutions to prevent this from happening again.

The bill also aims to strengthen the integrity, security and transparency of federal elections, but once again, there are a few minor pitfalls that I will address later. The bill seeks to update the electoral framework to address the risks of disinformation, foreign interference and cybersecurity. These issues were not yet as prominent during the last review of the Canada Elections Act.

The bill also seeks to formally change the names of certain electoral districts. I will take the liberty of going over the changes affecting my colleagues. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will now have a much easier riding name to remember. She will become the hon. member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. The member for Jonquière's riding name will get a little longer, but it will make his constituents happy. He will now be known as the member for “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. The Bloc Québécois already has the maple capital in one of its ridings. Now we officially have the blueberry capital too.

The member for Rimouski—La Matapédia is heading in the opposite direction of the future member for “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent”. From now on, he will be the member for “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. That name includes every single RCM in his riding.

As I was saying, the goals of the reform introduced by Bill C-25 are broad and entirely legitimate, but in our view, they have not been fully achieved. I said we would be generous, so we will talk about the positives. One of the changes to the Canada Elections Act is the end of anonymous donations. The new version of the act will no longer allow it.

It used to be allowed. People may not know this, but it used to be possible to make a donation completely anonymously, including through prepaid credit cards or cryptocurrencies that are impossible to trace. The new version of the act states that, should a member of Parliament happen to receive this type of donation, the money would be returned to the donor or destroyed if the donor could not be identified.

This prevents funding from being received from obscure sources, such as donations from foreign entities. Attempts are being made to interfere with our elections. This is one aspect of the bill that helps counter this interference, which is unfortunately becoming increasingly common. Just look at the work carried out by Justice Hogue, who chaired the foreign interference commission.

There are also stricter guidelines for nomination contests. In the wake of what is known in Quebec as the brownie scandal, we expected to see an equivalent measure put in place at the federal level, because Quebec had already quickly stated that it would close this loophole allowing fundraising for certain people in an electoral process, including leadership candidates and nomination contestants.

In stronghold ridings, the question is not so much who will win the riding as who will win the nomination contest. If a party is contributing money to a nomination contestant, there is a reasonable expectation, in some cases, that they would then become the member of Parliament.

That was not covered, but Quebec acted swiftly. We were happy to see the federal government follow suit. We were prepared to introduce a bill to that effect, but everything we were prepared to introduce was included in Bill C-25. We applaud the initiative.

As for the work that is also being done on disinformation and other forms of interference, we know that interference can be done through social media and online publications, among other things. The bill already prohibits deepfakes, which mislead people and cause them to unduly vote against a candidate or favour a candidate by manipulating the content of a post or publication. We have seen examples of members of Parliament being victims of deepfakes that encouraged people to invest in certain products, which was completely misleading. Therefore, the bill prohibits creating or disseminating AI-generated content that falsely claims to be authentic and is in fact intended to deceive voters about a political actor or even the electoral process itself.

We are also banning disinformation specifically regarding the electoral process. Unfortunately, among our neighbours to the south, we are seeing more people growing to distrust the integrity of the process. Bill C-25 addresses exactly that. It aims to expand existing provisions to further crack down on the publication of false or misleading information regarding voting procedures, such as voter eligibility, the various candidates and the nomination process. For example, a publication urging people to vote the day after the election would be subject to penalties now provided for in the bill.

Bill C-25 also addresses issues related to hacking. There are new offences related to hacking and the unauthorized use of a computer, among other things.

One of the issues that has interested us greatly, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is the idea of preventing a large number of candidates from running. We know that the right to run for office is a fundamental right, but unfortunately we have seen in the past that this right has been used to subvert democracy. It was a highly militant act to attempt to break the record for the longest ballot.

Every member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs agreed on the importance of addressing this issue, to the extent that we even moved a motion to conduct a study in committee specifically on the longest ballot. Most of the recommendations that emerged from that study are reflected in the bill. For example, it is now impossible for an official agent in a riding to serve as the official agent for multiple candidates. The longest ballot committee had a single official agent for 290 candidates. This is nonsensical considering the fact that legitimate candidates are meant to compete against one another.

Bill C-25 also establishes a new offence intended to deter individuals from encouraging voters to sign multiple nomination forms. We know that approach taken by the longest ballot committee involved group signing sessions where everyone would gather together and sign numerous nomination forms in a single sitting.

The bill also makes it an offence for a candidate to provide false or misleading information on their nomination forms or to encourage people to sign unidentified nomination forms. One of the things the committee pointed out was that, in order to recruit candidates, their nomination forms are already provided for them. Blank forms are already signed and given to them so that they can apply.

Various offences have also been added in this respect, but something has been added that we do not agree with. I am referring to prohibiting a voter from signing more than one nomination form. I talked about group signing sessions earlier, when a hundred or so forms are signed in a single sitting. That is one thing. However, a voter may legitimately want to or wish to sign more than one nomination form. Adding this limit, in our opinion, does not solve the problem. That is what the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, confirmed. The CEO does not have sufficient resources to cross-reference the data between the nomination forms to see whether there are indeed multiple signatures. In any case, candidates would not de disqualified on that basis.

Canada's Chief Electoral Officer has been very clear on this point. Allowing multiple signatures would not disallow certain candidates, in part because it would be impossible to determine which signature was obtained first in order and then establish which ballot is valid or invalid. This therefore places an unnecessary burden on the voters—not on the candidates—as they must limit themselves to signing only one nomination form. In our view, this also runs counter to the principle of the ballot secrecy.

If a voter is limited to a single signature, they might legitimately conclude that they are indirectly supporting a candidate and that, since they can sign only one nomination form, they will sign the nomination form of someone they are interested in. This could harm candidates from smaller parties. Indeed, if a candidate from a small party or even an independent candidate has to inform people that they can sign only one nomination form, that person may want to reserve their signature for someone from a larger party. It becomes difficult for someone from a smaller party to get signatures.

This could be seen as undermining ballot secrecy, but perhaps individuals who have not yet made up their mind might want to support two candidates running against each other so that they can make a more informed decision between the two later on. They might then want to sign two nomination forms, which would now be prohibited under the new legislation, which, as I mentioned, does not compel them one way or another. It might be a deterrent, but given the other offences created, particularly those targeting individuals who induce others to sign more than one nomination form, in this case the offences would apply to a voter. In certain cases the voter might mean well by signing more than one nomination form, and in any event, the various candidates would be accepted. That was the part that bothered us.

I also spoke about the fight against foreign interference. There is no denying that when it comes to elections, what really matters is money. Deepfakes, bribes and misinformation were all looked at. When it comes to fundraising, an attempt was made to address the matter of foreign funds, but the issue has only been partially dealt with, because it is still possible to circumvent the intent of the bill. I will explain what I mean.

Under the new legislation, a third-party entity that might want to promote an idea during an election campaign without being a political party may do so only with Canadian funds. So far, so good. However, we were told that for smaller entities, it becomes a bit complicated to sort out which funds are exclusively Canadian and which of their own funds come from various sources. To avoid complicating matters by requiring such entities to maintain separate bank accounts, the idea was to allow third parties to use up to 10% of their funds, regardless of the source of those funds, in order to participate in an election. It is worth mentioning that the Conservatives did a good job on this issue.

The problem is that for a third-party entity with vast resources, 10% can amount to a significant sum. For example, if several small entities were to join forces and raise a fund of $200 million, $20 million could still be spent without the source of the money being identified. We would have preferred to maintain the principle that only Canadian funds can be used to campaign in an election on behalf of a third party, rather than having this loophole that ultimately allows donations from outside the country to be accepted without additional scrutiny.

We are also disappointed that parties will no longer be required to provide five days' notice of a fundraising event and post it on their website. The report submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada would remove the exact addresses of those participating in the fundraising event for entirely valid security reasons, and I understand that. However, virtually all information about the donors is removed. We would have liked to at least retain the location and time of the event, as well as the postal codes of those who attended.

All of this comes in the wake of what happened with Wealth One Bank. There was a fundraising event in the Papineau riding that Chinese stakeholders had participated in. In the days that followed the fundraising event, the 46 donors from the Toronto area who had participated in it secured federal approval for the creation of their chartered bank, giving them the right to operate in Canada.

It was a form of pay to play. As a result, in 2018, the government created more transparency surrounding fundraisers by requiring the names of attendees to be disclosed. However, these provisions have been removed from the bill, which we believe is an unwarranted step backward when the goal is more transparency.

Another shocking irritant is the fact that the Liberals voted against our recommendation. The bill removes the requirement to return funds to donors when a violation occurs in the filing of the report within 30 days of a fundraising activity. For example, someone might neglect to file a report. It would then never be known who attended a fundraiser. The party would be fined, which it could pay out of the funds raised at that very event. This means that there is no deterrent to committing a violation when people hold a fundraiser, because they could reimburse themselves using the funds collected during that event if the rules are not followed. That is something that the Liberals removed from the original legislation. We tried to restore it through an amendment, but unfortunately it did not pass. That was certainly disappointing.

As I also mentioned, we would have liked to see more transparency in the reports. Both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois tried to achieve this. Unfortunately, their efforts went nowhere.

Another issue was raised, and that is privacy. We know that this is a very sensitive issue these days. Our digital identity is becoming increasingly prevalent and increasingly important. Governments must follow suit and ensure that organizations collecting sensitive information protect it adequately.

Bill C-25 takes a small step in the right direction by requiring parties to adopt formal privacy policies. However, it does not go any further, and that creates problems. The idea that parties will self-regulate when it comes to protecting privacy is flawed. For example, different parties will likely have different policies, and there is no federal framework to ensure consistency among them. This is essentially self-regulation, which is problematic.

Furthermore, last June, we passed Bill C-4. This bill allows political parties to be exempt from privacy protection measures implemented in Quebec and the other provinces. For example, a province may adopt a rigorous data protection regime that it wishes to impose on organizations such as federal political parties. This is precisely what British Columbia did, and that is what prompted the decision regarding Bill C-4. However, Bill C-4 exempts federal parties from the application of these measures.

We wanted to reinstate this requirement in the new version of the Canada Elections Act, but it was not included. Several witnesses told us that, pending a national federal privacy policy for political parties, ensuring that parties are at least subject to provincial regulations was the lesser of two evils. If a province has strict regulations, one can assume that the parties will comply with them. At the very least, in the meantime, while we wait for a genuine national policy, this would help unify data protection systems, rather than letting the parties regulate themselves.

I see that my time is almost up and that I have just a few seconds left. I just want to point out that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill even though it could have been improved more than it was. This is a little like someone telling us they are going to repaint the house, but they end up painting just one room and dirtying the floor in the process. It is better than it was, but it is not perfect.

Anyway, we will vote in favour of the bill even though it is somewhat disappointing, unfortunately. We hope that, in the near future, we will have an opportunity to revisit those shortcomings and fix them.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, maintaining trust in our democratic institutions is essential. We have a robust electoral system and framework in Canada, but to keep it strong, we need to adapt it to the challenges of our time.

I believe that by working together in the House, we will be able to maintain trust in our democratic institutions and make the necessary changes.

As we are seeing in other parts of the world, some democracies are facing challenges. There are instances of abuse and situations where the public is losing confidence in its democratic institutions, which has serious consequences.

That is why I believe that in Canada, where trust remains high, we must continue to work to preserve it by strengthening our democratic institutions and passing Bill C-25.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and riding neighbour for his contribution.

I would like to add a dose of moderation to our discussion. People boast that our electoral system is strong. However, it took a bill, the one that we are about to pass, to make it clear that bribes meant to force a vote, or bribes meant to persuade someone to vote one way or another, are prohibited.

The infamous “brownies” made headlines. How does my colleague explain the fact that we had to wait over 150 years following Confederation before a clause like this was introduced?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are already measures in place to protect the integrity of the election itself. When someone runs as a candidate or raises money for a political association, the contributions are registered and certain information must be provided. There is already a framework in place for that.

That said, some situations, not necessarily at the federal level, that the media have reported on have led us to propose amendments to further strengthen our electoral system.

My colleague talked about nomination contests and leadership races. Several provisions that currently apply to general elections under the Canada Elections Act did not apply to leadership races or nomination contests. Therefore, it is not just this specific example that is being addressed; a whole series of measures will now apply to nomination contests and leadership races.

As I mentioned in my speech, I think it was essential to take action. General elections are obviously important moments in our democracy, but so are nomination contests and leadership races. These events have real consequences, particularly for the composition of the House.

I think that taking some of the measures already set out in the Canada Elections Act and applying them to these other important moments in our democracy is a good decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to this government legislation again, Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee and have scrutinized this proposed legislation in my capacity there. I also spoke about this bill a couple of months ago, in mid-April. In that speech, I highlighted that this is a much-needed piece of legislation, one that Conservatives have been calling for since before the 2019 election.

There are some good things in the bill, some much-needed tools to help handle foreign interference in our elections. However, as I noted not even two months ago, it does not go far enough, especially with how it pertains to third party fundraising and foreign contributions. As we heard clearly from expert witnesses at the procedure and House affairs committee, Bill C-25 would improve the protection that Canadians have with respect to the electoral process, including from dangers posed by hostile foreign actors. However, it would leave some major holes, primarily regarding foreign contributions outside the election period.

How do we know this? We know because we as Conservatives are the ones who have been advocating for changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with this very issue for quite some time now. I will take some of the folks in this room way back with me to May 8, 2019. That is the day that my private member's bill, Bill C-406, was voted down at second reading in this very chamber. The goal of the bill, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to foreign contributions, was to deal with exactly this problem then, the same problem we are talking about now, seven years ago and three elections before the one that we just had.

The bill I proposed, Bill C-406, was a bill that would have amended the Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes. This is very important to me, because third party funding certainly comes in the form of advocacy and is used by third parties in campaigns to campaign against what I would consider to be the financial interests of the people I represent and of my home province, Alberta.

I also understood at that time that, just out of a matter of principle, Canadians and Canadians alone should be the ones funding, debating and voting in a Canadian general election. It does make sense. Foreign entities and countries outside our borders likely should not be able to fundraise or spend money for political purposes here in Canada. That in itself is a breach of public trust and is, I think, by very definition of course, a semblance of foreign interference, whether it is happening covertly or not. If we do not know about it, it is a problem.

My private member's bill would have stopped that foreign fundraising that influences our elections here in Canada. It would have addressed the very issues that Bill C-25 claims to address. Here we are, nearly a decade later. Members will never guess what happened. The Liberals voted against the bill, including the Liberal MP for Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, who is now the public safety minister, the same one who is now overseeing a new foreign agent registry that was recently introduced by the Liberals, despite his having been rabidly opposed to such a registry when it was the Conservatives, my former colleague Kenny Chiu, who proposed it. This is one of those that make a person go, “hmm”.

It is almost as if the Liberals will support a good policy only once they have been dragged through the wringer to actually see that it is a good idea. I do not know why that is, but they just genetically oppose every idea we pose to them until their ideas start to miserably fail and afflict Canadians some four to eight years later. Then, all of a sudden, they see the light and do the things we have been telling them they should have been doing all along. It does not exactly breathe confidence into the issue of dealing with foreign interference, does it?

We know that this is a theme. The Liberals often chastise Conservatives for big, sweeping policy ideas, but give it half a decade, and once the chickens come home to roost on the cabal of bad ideas across the way, they will eventually adopt Conservative ideas, rebrand them and package them as their own. The Prime Minister did it at Oxford with his thesis and is doing it here as well in the House of Commons. I only wish the Liberals had long ago adopted my idea of banning foreign nationals and entities from donating to and supporting third parties for election advertising purposes. It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle.

We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions. In other words, there would still be a gaping hole that would allow foreign entities to send money to third parties, which could end up influencing, affecting or being spent in our general elections.

The bill would crack down, but it would not prohibit. It would not go far enough. There would still be wide open loopholes for foreign funding to pour into Canadian elections. Foreign contributions for political purposes would still be allowed in Canada; Bill C-25 would not change that. Lots of witnesses who came before the procedure and House affairs committee testified that, in their opinion, this is completely unacceptable. I think that most Canadians, if they knew money was coming in to third parties from outside Canada and being spent on elections advertising, would be quite concerned.

What also came out of our foreign interference study at committee, perhaps most notably, was our former candidate Joe Tay's testimony. Mr. Tay was our Conservative candidate of record in Don Valley North. Former Liberal MP Paul Chiang put a bounty on him during the 2025 election. Chiang encouraged folks to turn Mr. Tay in to the Chinese consulate in Toronto for a cash reward. There was already an arrest warrant for Mr. Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way.

We also know, based on testimonies at the committee from volunteers on Mr. Tay's campaign, that they were stalked, followed, intimidated and harassed by individuals. These were campaign volunteers, for crying out loud. It is hard enough to find people to come out to participate in our elections. The last thing we need is foreign entities and foreign funds coming in to discourage, intimidate and harass campaign volunteers, regardless of the political party they are helping. This is just wrong across the board. It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody.

Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnerships. Just over a year ago, on the debate stage during the 2025 election, the Prime Minister admitted that the biggest threat to Canada's security was the Communist regime in China. I am not sure, but I would like to know where that Prime Minister went. Across the aisle, the Liberals expect us to believe that they are serious about halting foreign interference. They will have to give me a bit of a break, because I am not buying what they are selling. I try to make it make sense, but it just does not.

We are talking about the individuals who are interfering in our elections and meddling in our campaigns. They are targeting our people, and they are spending money on propaganda campaigns that endanger Canadians, especially those in specific diaspora communities. The bill would do nothing to solve these problems. Sure, the bill would crack down on foreign spending during the writ period, but it would leave a massive hole for foreign entities to pour money into political advertising outside the writ period.

For folks that are watching at home and wondering what the writ period is, I will explain. There is a writ period, and when we have a fixed election, there is a pre-writ period, and then there are the three years in between. During those three years, third parties will not be required to separate the molecules, per se, so any money that comes in to those third parties from foreign entities during that time frame will not be scrutinized by Elections Canada. They can just bankroll all these things in the pre-writ period and then spend as much as they want during the writ period during a fixed election.

Do not take my word for it; this comes directly from constitutional legal experts who gave their testimony at a committee and said that they agreed with the exact interpretation we had when we read the bill. It would still leave that gaping hole.

Conservatives have been talking about foreign interference for nearly a decade. After 2021, our leader at the time brought up the issue of foreign interference in our elections. He was supported by our former colleague, Kenny Chiu from Steveston—Richmond East, who warned for years about foreign interference before being a victim of it himself.

These are the issues we have had. We have had a public inquiry into foreign interference. The government dragged its feet on that and finally succumbed to the mountains of pressure that were put on it at the time. It seemed to be reluctant the whole time. It is almost as if the foreign interference regime that had been orchestrated in the last couple of elections had a blind eye turned to it, because it obviously benefited somebody in the chamber.

I am glad to see that it looks like the government is trying to change its ways and is presenting this bill. Conservatives still have massive concerns with it, but we will be supporting the bill and would make sure the Canada Elections Act is, if not perfect, at least better than it is today.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting from the member opposite, who also sits on the committee with me, is the fact that he said he is not buying what we are selling, though we worked in collaboration with their team to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible. Maybe he could help all members of the House let Canadians know which parts of the bill he supports and which he does not support.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that are certainly a bit problematic. I laid that out in my speech. I trust that my colleague, who sits on the committee, was also there when we were asking specific questions about just how third party funding is still allowed to happen in the general elections of Canada. Our position as Conservatives is that we should be clamping down on that even more. Is it being clamped down on a bit more than it was before? Yes, it is. Has it gone far enough? No, it has not. Are there still issues with the commissioner of elections potentially having a bit too much power and authority now, without having a second set of eyes like a judge or somebody? The amount of administrative penalty that can be levied right now is certainly a bit problematic.

Obviously, we are happy with what has happened with the longest ballot committee, but we think more could have been done there as well, and it would be nice if we could finally get that foreign interference registry stood up.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this.

My question for my colleague is quite simple. What is missing from this bill that would make it even better, although maybe not perfect?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not on the procedure and House affairs committee anymore, but we spent years there, particularly in the previous Parliament when foreign interference was front and centre and prevalent not only at the committee but also in the national spotlight, and I want to thank her for her work there.

The Bloc Québécois has some issues with the bill. The Conservatives have some issues. Some of those are the same, some of those are different, but we broadly support the measures contained in the bill. We are disappointed that the government voted down certain important amendments that we put forward, like mandating better security at ballot boxes and closing third party advertising loopholes, for example. We are going to continue to call on the government to strengthen the Canada Elections Act to make sure that we can have confidence and trust in the institutions of the Government of Canada, particularly in the institution that is responsible for delivering elections, which are the foundation of our democracy.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know third party advertising and the involvement of foreign governments in our elections is a big problem. It reared its head back in 2015. I am sure the member remembers back in the day. This is a headline from 2017: “Controversial Leadnow active in B.C. politics, Vancouver city affairs”. We originally sort of brought the evidence forward that this was occurring. The article refers to “claims filed last week with Elections Canada—and reported this week by the Calgary Herald—that foreign money 'spawned' Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.”

I would ask the member to speak to this issue. It is a big deal, and we even see our colleague across the way from Toronto affected by shenanigans in elections. Maybe the member can just speak to what happened back in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies and I would have very similar constituents. They are hard-working, honest, patriotic, law-abiding Canadians who love going hunting and fishing. They work in forestry, mining, oil and gas and agriculture. These are folks who are very concerned about foreign money coming from foundations.

Folks at home who want to go and look this up can take a look at some of these foundations, like the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation or the Tides foundation. These organizations do not just have a few thousand or a few hundred thousand dollars, or even a few million dollars. They actually have assets worth billions of dollars, and they are able to create organizations, like Leadnow, in another country and then fund them, with this massive foundation that they have, to influence policies in another country. This is very problematic. A good friend of mine, Vivian Krause, has actually exposed much of how this money gets brought into Canada to fund various organizations and groups to block resource development in Canada. It is very frustrating.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who voted for us and depend on us to be their voice here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant, and they depend on us to be their voice. We have to be ready for the challenges and dangers that emerge, and I accept that responsibility with sincere dedication to the amazing people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the people of Canada. We must all take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome challenges and dangers, including the the unintended consequences caused by the actions or the inactions of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and actions more than at any other time.

As I begin speaking to this bill, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, I would like to thank all of the Elections Canada workers, from the electoral district returning officers to the poll workers, the volunteers and the ever-important scrutineers who are such an important part of our democratic system here in Canada. I will speak to components of this bill, Bill C-25, and how parts of it are overdue while other parts need further debate and consideration for what is best for Canada and Canadians' interests.

After the 2021 federal election, Canadians were alarmed to hear of foreign interference in the election of candidates and members sent here to represent and defend this country's interests. The Liberals say they care about democracy, yet they have allowed foreign actors to brazenly interfere in our elections. It was only after the Liberals got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference that they finally introduced legislation to establish a foreign influence registry in Canada. However, two years after passing that bill into law, there is still no registry. So far, we have had date after date promised and date after date missed. After years of opposing a foreign influence registry, including Conservative efforts to create one, the Liberals' latest tactic appears to be one of endless delay. It is time for the Liberal government to finally take foreign interference seriously. It is time to get a registry up and running, today.

I must say that this is uncannily similar to an issue dealt with in my role as associate shadow minister for fisheries, and that is the issue of foreign ownership of licences and quota on the west coast. The last Conservative government put in motion policies to stop the issue of controlling agreements between processors and harvesters on the east coast, where processors were limiting harvesters' choice of where they landed their catch and how much they received for their catch. In the following years, legislation and regulations were put in place to end those controlling agreements and protect local fish harvesters and their communities on the east coast.

In May 2019, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. In that report, there were 20 recommendations to government that would have helped meet the aspirations of fish harvesters, especially young fishers, to carry on their careers and family traditions and contribute to building economically, socially and culturally vibrant west coast communities.

In 2023, four years later, that same fisheries committee undertook another study to produce yet another report, titled “Foreign Ownership and Corporate Concentration of Fishing Licences and Quota”. The testimony we heard during that second report was alarming in that after four years, the government had taken almost no action to identify who the beneficial owners of licences and quota are on the west coast. In fact, what we basically heard was that it has no idea.

It is now seven years since that first report on the issue was tabled in the House, and the Liberal government has yet to address the issue and put in place any significant measures to protect our independent harvesters on the west coast. That is why I say that Bill C-25 and the west coast fisheries issues have something in common. It is delay, delay, delay. If the Liberals do not find it important enough to create a foreign influence registry or to investigate whether foreign entities own licences and quotas, and who controls, catches and processes our Canadian seafood, then Conservatives will hold them accountable, and we hope that Canadians will expect that accountability from their government.

Another component of the bill that I want Canadians to be aware of is the third party financing loophole. Bill C-25 would create a wide open loophole through which foreign money could still be used by third parties for partisan activity, partisan advertising and election surveying. Specifically, if contributions to a third party amount to 10% or less of its annual revenue in the year prior to a fixed election year, it could use its own funds to pay for, among other things, partisan activity and advertising. A third party's own funds do not have to come from Canadian citizens or permanent residents and do not have to be reported in the same way.

With fixed election periods, it is very easy for third parties and foreign interests to predict when an election may be. A foreign interest could funnel money into a third party for two or three years ahead of schedule, which would then be treated as part of the third party's own funds. Further, 10% sounds like a small number, but it may not be. There are third parties that have a lot of money. What constitutes 10% or less of a third party's revenue coming from contributions may in fact be millions of dollars. This means that very large third parties would be able to use their own funds for election-related expenses. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against our amendments to close these wide open loopholes in the bill.

I raise these points as part of this debate because that is what we as elected representatives are sent here to do, to scrutinize legislation and make it the best it can be. What we have seen from the government since I first came here in 2015 is not the best legislation it could be. Conservatives will continue to call on the Liberal government to strengthen Canada's position against foreign actors who seek to influence our economies and our democracy.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague who sits on committee with me said he feels we are not listening. I talked about the fact that we did extensive collaboration. This is one of the most fast-tracked bills that I personally have witnessed since I have been a member of Parliament, because of the expert input we brought on and the collaboration that happened between all parties in the House.

Can the member comment on what exactly in this bill the Conservatives cannot support and what they can support?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening, she would have heard me speak about the third party financing loophole. There could be millions of dollars spent by foreign entities to affect the nomination and election of candidates and representatives who are elected to ensure the security and safety of our country. If anything, this has to be the one piece that should have been addressed, and the government should recognize that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about democracy, and the purpose of the bill is to make things simpler. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding for political parties should be reinstated because the tax refund basically amounts to public funding anyway.

Who among us can afford to donate $1,750 to a political party? That is completely ridiculous. What does the member think about reinstating public funding for political parties, particularly in light of the fact that it was eliminated by a former Conservative government?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question on political financing.

Prior to when I was elected, there was what was known as a per-vote subsidy. If a member got a certain number of votes in the previous election, they got that subsidy from the taxpayer.

What has changed now is that there is a maximum amount that individuals, and they must be individuals, not corporations, can contribute to an election candidate. That levels the playing field. To be elected, candidates have to work for the funds they need to use for their campaigns. They cannot just run on the money they raised because of the votes they got in the previous election. It is an incentive for candidates to work hard for their constituents so they can be recognized by and have support behind them from individuals in their riding.

[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)