Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2026

[Cathy Hawara]

Yes, the most urgent recommendations from the public inquiry on foreign interference have been addressed, either wholly or in part. It's the same thing with regard to the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections in their 2022 report.

Regarding the example that was given with respect to unauthorized use of a computer, we are expanding that particular protection so that it's not just about unauthorized use of a computer to attempt to influence the results of an election but also for attempts to disrupt the conduct of elections. That's an example with respect to that.

A number of participants also noted that some of these protections that are in place today only apply during the conduct of an election, and the recommendation was that they should apply at all times. The bill expands a number of the key safeguards so that they apply not just during the conduct of an election but at all times. This includes, for example, a ban on foreign influence of voters, and there is an application of these protections to actions that take place outside of Canada as well.

These were among the critical recommendations that were made, I would say, which were the basis of the measures you see in the bill today.

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

Thank you for taking those recommendations and helping us shape this legislation. I appreciate it.

That's my time, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much, Mr. Louis—with five seconds left to spare.

Madame Normandin, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Ms. Pereira, I'd like to start by asking questions about the clause of the bill that concerns the publication of reports.

Could you just summarize the changes that Bill C‑25 would make?

Until now, what has been the rule regarding the publication of reports, both the report published five days before an event and the one published after an event?

What exactly does Bill C‑25 change in terms of producing the contact information of a person hosting an event, the names of attendees and so on?

[Rachel Pereira]

Thank you for your question.

Regarding changes to the regulated fundraising event regime, currently the regime requires advance notice of five days before the event, with some of the details of the event, including the location and venue of the event. That five-day advance notice will be removed. It will be repealed.

The rest of the regulated fundraising event regime is in place. That means that 30 days after the event, there's a report that will be issued with all of the details that were included before—the names of all attendees aged 18 and over, the name of venue, the names of prominent attendees and the amount that was contributed to attend. All of those details will be in that report. The only difference is that the location will be limited to the municipality and province. The level of detail of the venue will change.

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

As I understand it, there's no longer any information at all to produce five days before the event. For example, it isn't about producing information and limiting its distribution to the municipality. It's simply no longer necessary to give advance notice that an activity is being held.

Have I understood that correctly?

[Rachel Pereira]

That is correct. There is no requirement, under the law, for parties to provide an advance notice. They can if they wish to, but it's not required.

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

Thank you very much.

My second question is about clause 5 of Bill C‑25. As I understand it, parties can obtain amendments to the preliminary lists. To get the preliminary lists, a party needs to have run candidates in at least two-thirds of the ridings.

Ms. Hawara, I'd like to hear your comments on the impact this may have on the Bloc Québécois, which runs candidates only in Quebec.

[Cathy Hawara]

Thank you for the question.

Three criteria were set out in the act. It isn't necessarily just that one that has to be met.

To clarify, I would say that what we're trying to do is make sure that we protect the integrity of the information in that list, in particular. At the moment, it's accessible to eligible parties that haven't necessarily yet nominated candidates who will run in the riding in question.

If the party is represented in the House of Commons before the election, or if it has nominated a candidate endorsed in that riding in at least one of the last two elections, or, indeed, if it has nominated candidates in two-thirds of the ridings in the country, it will have access to the list.

Based on our analysis, all the parties currently represented in the House would continue to have access to that list.

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

Great.

That means the various criteria shouldn't be considered to be cumulative.

Is that correct?

[Cathy Hawara]

Exactly.

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

Thank you very much.

My other question may carry over into the second round of questions. It's about data protection.

I'm referring to a situation that occurred in Alberta a few days ago. Parties that have obtained lists can, intentionally or unintentionally, end up leaving them in the hands of others, who can then publish them.

Was this taken into considered when Bill C‑25 was being drafted?

What measures already exist to protect against this?

Are any additional measures being planned? If not, should we be making recommendations, changes or amendments?

You have one minute left, but at worst, we can continue the discussion in the second round.

[Cathy Hawara]

I'll try to be brief.

What happened in Alberta is still under investigation, so I won't comment on that.

What I can say to the committee is that, under the current act, there are strict limits as to who can obtain the list and how it can be used. Only registered and eligible parties, candidates and parliamentarians can obtain the list. Plus, it can only be used to communicate with voters.

Essentially, anyone who knowingly uses personal information from a voter list for any other purpose is in violation of the act and can be fined up to $10,000 or face one year in prison. Of course, the commissioner can, on their own initiative, or in response to a complaint from a member of the public, investigate any potential violation or failure to comply with the act.

Right now, the act covers this kind of situation. Even if the measures found in the bill don't apply specifically to this issue, they still strengthen the protection of personal information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

We'll now go back to Mr. Cooper for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Pereira, just following up on your hypothetical, in the case of the 10% exception whereby if 10% or less of a third party's revenue came from contributions in the year prior to the pre-writ election year, as I understood you say, if during that period the third party received $1,000 in contributions and $9,000 in general revenue, the amount of money they could spend for regulated activities would be $9,000. Do I have that right?

[Rachel Pereira]

They would be able to use their $1,000 in contributions, but because they meet that threshold, they could additionally use some of their own revenue. If they have $9,000, presumably they wouldn't use all of their revenue, but they could have access additionally to using those funds for regulated activities, in which case they would then need to provide financial statements to Elections Canada as part of their reporting requirements to demonstrate the source of funds.

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

They could use those contributions, and those contributions would be treated as their own funds.

[Rachel Pereira]

Contributions would be contributions from Canadians and permanent residents, and those would have the name, address and so on and so forth that are required for the reporting. Those are contributions from Canadians as required. However, some subset of third parties have their own funds. For example, unions mostly use their own funds, as membership dues are their own funds. They may not receive a lot of contributions, so they would use their own funds, which are not from contributions.

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

Taking another hypothetical, suppose that a foreign source decided, in the previous year, to buy a whole lot of—I don't know—overpriced merchandise from a third party entity, thereby inflating the revenue of the third party, what provisions in the act—if any—would counter that effort to work around the intent of the act, which is to stop the use of foreign money from influencing our elections via third parties?

[Rachel Pereira]

First, that third party, if they were to participate—or they wished to participate—in the election and in regulated activities, would first have to use contributions from Canadians and permanent residents.

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

However, it's not necessarily so, because I'm citing an example where a foreign entity was purchasing merchandise, goods or items for the intent of circumventing the act. I know there are certain provisions for when there is evidence that it was wilfully circumvented, but these things are very difficult to establish and very difficult to prosecute. It seems to me—but I'm open to hearing you—that this is another way to get around the intent, which is to stop the flow of foreign money into third parties.

[Rachel Pereira]

Thank you for that point.

Third parties are not necessarily exclusively political actors. They operate over time—

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

I understand that third parties can be any number of entities with any number of objectives, but the issue at hand is that foreign money and foreign sources ought not to be influencing our elections, including through third parties. There are loopholes that allow that to happen. This bill goes a long way, I believe, in trying to close those loopholes, but it seems that this 10% exception keeps loopholes in place or opens the door to new loopholes. That's what I want to get to the bottom of.

[Rachel Pereira]

That's understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Please give a very brief answer.