Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This bill would make a number of substantive amendments to the act. It is, in some respects, a technical bill with many moving pieces. Those pieces include welcome measures to counter the disruptive and anti-democratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee. This bill also contains welcome measures to counter foreign interference in our elections, as well as nomination and leadership contests. The bill would largely close loopholes that exist with respect to foreign funding of third parties. Additionally, the bill would create a number of new offences and extend existing offences under the act to leadership and nomination contests, and the bill would give significant new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections to undertake investigations and to enforce the act, among other measures. As I said, it contains a number of moving parts.
Before getting into some of the particulars of the bill, let me say that, on the whole, the measures contained in the bill are welcome. That is not to say that amendments need not be considered. I think in some instances they do. Moreover, certain measures within the bill warrant careful scrutiny, particularly some of the new offences, as well as the additional powers being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. With that said, Conservatives support debating this bill vigorously at second reading and then getting it to the procedure and House affairs committee for further study, review and possible amendments.
Let us move on to the particulars of the bill. The bill does deal with the very unwelcome activities of the longest ballot committee. We have seen, in the last number of years, the spectacle of this rogue group flooding the ballot in targeted ridings with fake candidates who have no interest in campaigning, no interest in engaging in voters, do not put forward substantive policy positions and have no interest in getting elected. They are merely names on a ballot, all part of a coordinated scheme to weaponize the ballot and undermine the democratic process.
The longest ballot committee has been able to flood the ballot by taking advantage of certain provisions in the Canada Elections Act. The clearest example is the signature threshold with respect to nomination papers. Under the act, a candidate must obtain 100 signatures from electors in the riding to get on the ballot. The longest ballot committee has identified roughly the same pool of 100 voters and encouraged or invited those voters to then sign the nomination forms of all of the fake candidates that they seek to get onto the ballot. This is a clear abuse of the Canada Elections Act insofar as the purpose of that section is to require that a candidate have the support of at least 100 electors, not that the same 100 voters can flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. It is a low threshold, but a threshold nonetheless.
Let me say, for those who would dismiss the activities of the longest ballot committee as some sort of joke or something to shrug off, that nothing could be further from the truth. The activities of the longest ballot committee have had very negative consequences for voters, for candidates and for Elections Canada. We saw in Carleton, for example, 91 fake candidates, resulting in a metre-long ballot. What impact do things like a metre-long ballot have on elections?
They certainly cause voter confusion. They create barriers for persons with certain disabilities. They make it more difficult to administer elections. They create barriers for legitimate candidates to break through with voters and they cause long delays in tabulating the vote, with the overall effect of undermining confidence in the democratic process. The activities of the longest ballot committee need to be put to a stop.
The bill contains measures that would, I believe, largely achieve that objective, including requiring that electors sign only one candidate's nomination form and making it an offence to sign multiple forms, as well as requiring that an official agent act for only one candidate per riding. The longest ballot committee, other than in the most recent Terrebonne by-election, had, effectively, the same agent acting for all of the candidates. It would normally be seen as a conflict of interest to be acting for multiple candidates who were supposedly competing against one another, which would be the case if these were legitimate candidates instead of what amounts to a total and complete sham of the electoral process by the longest ballot committee.
On another matter, with respect to the third party regime, the bill does, in large part, close identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding of third parties. Integral to our democratic process is that our elections should be decided by Canadians, free of foreign influence and foreign interference, yet there are very significant loopholes that have allowed foreign interests, foreign actors, to influence our elections with witting third parties.
One might ask how this is possible, given that, for example, section 349.02 of the Canada Elections Act states that no third party shall use funds for a regulated activity if the source of the funds is a foreign entity.
There are two loopholes, in practice. One is a melding-of-funds issue, whereby certain contributions can be treated as part of the general revenue of the registered third party. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer about this at the procedure and House affairs committee and he confirmed that this loophole exists. It is described as follows:
Third parties are required only to record contributions given to them for the purpose of engaging in regulated activities. Contributions received for no specific purpose, or no purpose directly linked to regulated electoral activities, are treated as general revenue. If they are used for regulated activities, they are reported as forming part of the third party's own funds or resources.
In other words, if the contribution is specifically sent for a regulated activity, for the purpose of engaging in a regulated activity, foreign funds would be prohibited, but if they are sent in a general way, they might be able to be used, which means that, hypothetically, third parties could have 100% of their funds being from a foreign source.
Another loophole that exists is with respect to the transferring of funds or the funnelling of funds through various intermediaries. For example, if foreign entity A transferred money to Canadian intermediary B, and Canadian intermediary B transferred the money to a third party entity, it would be treated as a contribution from Canadian intermediary B, even though the ultimate source of the funds was foreign. That is problematic. I should add that it is hardly hypothetical. These are loopholes that have been exploited.
I saw this first-hand. Back in 2017, I filed a complaint with the commissioner of Canada elections in which nearly $700,000 U.S. from the U.S.-based Tides Foundation was funnelled into eight registered third parties that campaigned against the Harper government in the 2015 election. That is just one example. Because of these loopholes and the total lack of transparency, we do not know how often this is occurring, but it is a problem having regard for the fact that only Canadians should determine the outcome of our elections, free from foreign influence and interference.
This bill would largely, but not entirely, close these very problematic loopholes by requiring third parties to set up separate bank accounts in which they can only use the funds or donations of individual Canadians or PRs for regulated activities. There is an exception to that, which is that if a third party has contributions of less than 10% of its overall revenue in the year prior to the pre-writ period, it can use its own funds and does not need to set up a separate bank account.
That does raise questions about whether there are circumstances in which foreign funds could be treated as being melded with the general funds of a third party. For example, if a foreign entity sent money to a third party the year prior to the pre-writ period, would those funds be treated as melded? That is just one example.
Given the fact that we have fixed election dates in which the timing of an election is often relatively foreseeable, it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which foreign actors take advantage of such a loophole to the degree that it may exist with this exception. All of this is to say that this needs to be carefully examined at the procedure and House affairs committee.
It is my view that the best solution to getting rid of the possibility of foreign money being used to influence our elections through third parties is to simply require that all third parties set up a separate bank account in which they use the contributions of individual Canadians and PRs. That seems to me to be the most straightforward, the most transparent and the most democratic approach. It would put third parties closer to the same playing field as political parties insofar as political parties can only use the contributions of individual Canadians and PRs.
I am pleased that in the questions I posed to the minister, he expressed openness to considering such an amendment and more broadly that he supports closing loopholes that allow for the use of foreign funding. I would hope that, at the very least, whether the government supports that amendment or not, it would support amendments to close any loopholes to the extent that they exist as a result of this exception.
Speaking of foreign interference, this bill would extend certain existing offences under the Canada Elections Act to leadership and nomination contests. For example, one such offence is with respect to undue influence by foreigners, which would include a person or entity knowingly incurring expenses to directly promote or oppose a nomination contestant or leadership contestant.
We have seen that leadership and nomination contests have been exploited. There is a vulnerability there. Madam Justice Hogue noted that nomination contests, for example, are the primary “gateway” and vulnerability for foreign interference in the democratic process. We saw a very clear example of that in the Liberal nomination in 2019 in Don Valley North, where the Beijing Toronto consulate was involved in organizing and coordinating international students from outside of the riding to support a certain candidate, who ultimately won that nomination and was elected to this place. I have to say that it was a scandal, because we know that former prime minister Justin Trudeau was informed about Beijing's interference in the 2019 election and turned a blind eye to it. Madam Justice Hogue concluded that he did so out of direct concern for electoral consequences to the Liberal Party. Needless to say, what happened in Don Valley North demonstrates the need for extending certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act relating to offences around foreign interference to nomination contests, as well as leadership contests.
With respect to some of the measures within the bill that warrant further scrutiny, I would note that administrative monetary penalties are increasing significantly: from $1,500, the maximum penalties for individuals at present, to $25,000. For organizations, the maximum administrative penalties are going up from $5,000 to $100,000. These represent a very significant increase. If the commissioner of Elections Canada is imposing an administrative penalty of $100,000, which is a pretty punitive penalty, it begs the question, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, whether in circumstances such as that the appropriate course of action would be to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions and to proceed by way of criminal prosecution.
The need for scrutiny is underscored by the fact that under this bill, the commissioner would no longer, in all circumstances, need to get judicial authorization in order to compel evidence. We need to scrutinize these new powers for the commissioner to ensure that they are balanced and proportionate and do not unduly infringe upon due process rights.
With respect to some of the new offences, they also need to be scrutinized, particularly through the lens of ensuring that they are charter-compliant and do not infringe upon freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as well as ensuring that they do not have any unintended and harmful chilling effects with respect to free speech.
Let me say, in closing, that the amendments brought forward in this bill are a step forward. They are a positive step forward. They close existing loopholes that have been exploited by foreign interests and foreign actors. They provide new powers to better protect the integrity of our elections. I look forward to carefully reviewing the bill at committee.