Debates of April 16th, 2026

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, this bill is truly in step with the technology, which is evolving rapidly. We do not want to be left behind; rather, we want to stay ahead of the curve to ensure that technological advances are regulated, particularly when it comes to deepfakes. I would say to my colleague that this is what the bill is designed to address. We will counter any type of technological or AI intrusion.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my time today, I want to talk about two specific issues. One is foreign interference in the context of the Hogue commission, and the second is my own experience in the 2015 election and my previous nomination contest at the time.

Let us start with the Hogue commission. What did the Hogue commission say about foreign interference? It concluded that foreign states are actively attempting to interfere in Canada's democratic institutions and electoral processes. The threat is persistent and evolving, with the main state actors identified as China, India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan. The commission noted that their tactics include covert influence, disinformation, cyber activity, intimidation and the use of proxies within Canada.

The Hogue commission outlined that the 2019 and 2021 elections were not undermined, but that there was foreign influence. The commissioner found no evidence of widespread or systematic manipulation. At most, though it is still very significant, a small number of ridings may have been impacted, but that impact could not be determined with certainty; in other words, the ability of the government to determine our security apparatuses did not have the tools. There was no evidence that members of Parliament were elected because of foreign state support.

The commission found that there were no parliamentarians influenced by foreign agents. While there were some concerning and naive interactions with foreign actors, the evidence did not support allegations of systemic betrayal or treason in the context of those elections.

The commissioner outlined that the greatest threat from foreign actors is disinformation and misinformation, especially online. Those things cause the most serious, long-term threat to Canadian democracy. Social media, foreign-language platforms and AI-enabled tools are increasingly used to amplify division, discourage participation and undermine trust. Even when election outcomes are unchanged, disinformation damages confidence in democracy, which is in itself a strategic objective of hostile state actors.

The commission found that diaspora communities in Canada are disproportionately harmed. A central finding of the Hogue commission was on the human impact of foreign interference. Diaspora communities are the primary targets. Many experience transnational repression, including threats, intimidation, surveillance of family abroad and coercion. Indeed, I believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North had his family impacted by these very problems. These activities, in many cases, chill political participation in Canada and undermine self-expression and trust in Canadian institutions.

While government responses have improved, we have been too slow and opaque as a nation to address many of our shortcomings. Our government is slow to react to intelligence. There is poor coordination, and there are unclear responsibilities. There have been failures in intelligence flow to decision-makers, and there is insufficient transparency and public communication about the real threats that Canada faces.

Our intelligence is fragile and has limits. Much of the information about foreign interference comes from unverified or partial intelligence. Intelligence must be handled carefully to avoid unfair conclusions about individuals. The intelligence-to-evidence problem makes prosecutions difficult and requires non-criminal disruption tools.

Foreign interference, the commission notes, has already harmed our democracy by undermining trust. It has been successful in weakening public confidence in the outcomes of our elections.

The commissioner also noted that we need a whole-of-society response. We need greater transparency in public education, digital and media literacy, stronger coordination across government, engagement with civil society, and targeted action against disinformation and transnational repression.

The bottom line from the Hogue commission is that foreign interference is a real and serious threat. Although our democracy has proven resilient, we have seen some gaps and some damage because our government has not moved fast enough.

I will say that the Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-25 at second reading to go to committee so we can make improvements to our democracy. I am glad to see this type of collaboration in the House of Commons.

What would Bill C-25 do? It would extend foreign interference protections year-round. It would close channels for foreign and opaque political financing, such as cryptocurrencies, money orders and prepaid cards. It would tighten third party financing rules so that only Canadian citizens' or permanent residents' funds could be used for regulated partisan activities. It would prohibit using foreign money, property or services to influence elections in Canada. While there are still a few more loopholes we want to address at committee, this is a step in the right direction.

Bill C-25 would protect nomination and leadership contests from interference. It would ban deceptive AI deepfakes tied to elections. It would criminalize false information meant to disrupt voting. It would strengthen enforcement penalties. There would be increases to administrative monetary penalties, up to $100,000 for organizations. I think we might even consider going higher on some of those penalties if in fact our intelligence community found that foreign actors were using funds in a nefarious manner. It would improve party data protection obligations and boost foreign information threat detection capacity for our government.

This is all very important. However, I will note as well that in the last Parliament, we had Bill C-70, which was a response to the troubling findings of the Hogue commission. Still, today, despite many repeated promises, the Government of Canada has not enacted a foreign registry. Many of the things in Bill C-25 cannot be operationalized, cannot be used to their full effect, until the government fulfills its responsibility on legislation that received royal assent over a year ago. The threats to democracy are real, that has been concluded in Canada, but we have not seen the requisite action from the government to move at a speed that undermines the real problems Canadians are facing.

A foreign registry would protect democratic debate in Canada. It would address that grey zone between influence and interference. It would deter covert and deceptive behaviour. It would strengthen trust in our institutions without stigmatizing communities. It would give parliamentarians and officials a basic due diligence tool. It would align Canada with all of our Five Eyes allies, who already have a similar policy in place. It would reinforce the principle that sovereignty includes the information space and that how we conduct ourselves as MPs and engage with foreign agents or foreign governments matters in the context of protecting Canadian sovereignty.

I mention all of this in the context of a former member of Parliament, Han Dong. While the Hogue commission outlined that intelligence officials in Canada indicated that PRC officials likely attempted to influence the 2019 Liberal nomination contest in Don Valley North, there were limits to our intelligence, so the Hogue commission and the Government of Canada could not definitively determine whether those foreign students actually voted and whether or not coercion in fact occurred. I argue here today that if we had enacted the tools in Bill C-70, and if we enact the tools in Bill C-25, the findings of the Hogue commission would have been different regarding Han Dong. I think the findings would have been much worse for Mr. Dong.

I served on the HUMA committee with Mr. Dong in 2020, and it is on the parliamentary record that he spoke more about the need to have better processes and policies in place for foreign students than about any other subject matter when he got to the standing committee in the first place. How can we not, in this House, recognize that Mr. Dong was in fact influenced by those foreign students, or by the PRC officials who brought those foreign students to his nomination? I know that is a bit controversial, but the record stands for itself. Mr. Dong was here to advocate for foreign students from China, not to stand up for his constituents. I believe he was influenced, and I have no problem saying that in this chamber.

What I would love the government to do is to move swiftly with Bill C-25. The Liberals have the backing of the Conservatives. Let us tie together some of those third party financing obligations that serve Canadian sovereignty. Let us prevent another situation like that nefarious nomination in 2019. Let us give our law enforcement the tools it needs to protect Canadian sovereignty, and let us improve the processes in this place so there are clear lines of intelligence between our officials and our security apparatus. That does not exist today, but between Bill C-70, with the work the government needs to do today to enact a foreign registry, and the tools in Bill C-25, I believe we are moving in the right direction.

I am going to change subjects here because I would be remiss if I did not take an opportunity during a review of the Canada Elections Act to talk about the very real challenges I faced in 2015. I raise this because in 2015, tons of foreign students participated in my nomination. The most common form of identification was an Indian passport. People would go to the table to vote, and they would write a Canadian address and use an Indian passport. It was horrible. It undermined the confidence of people who had signed up in good faith as Canadian citizens to participate in our electoral process.

I will note that the Conservative Party was following all the rules and that after Liv Grewal technically “won” the nomination in 2015, the Conservative Party used the Canada Elections Act, existing measures and its own investigative powers as a political entity in Canada to remove that candidate because of what took place at that nomination. Liv Grewal's father, Gurmant Grewal, a former Conservative member of Parliament, had signed up non-Canadians to participate in that nomination.

The principal problem that happened in 2015 still exists. Under a Canadian ID issued by a province, we do not know whether someone is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident or a foreign student. Our identification does not outline that key fact. I know this has happened in all parties. It is not a partisan issue. This is a nomination issue with Elections Canada. It happens in every political party. Even under the many good and positive improvements the Conservative Party has made within the context of the Canada Elections Act, when people go to vote, one cannot determine their citizenship. One cannot determine whether someone is simply a permanent resident or a foreign student. That is a wide gap for abuse in our system.

I will note that at the Conservative convention, we tried to pass a resolution to change this. Unfortunately, it did not pass, because many Conservative members made the rightful point that sometimes a permanent resident's first access to Canadian democracy is that vote in a nomination contest. In many parts of the country, for the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, the nomination itself is the determining factor in who will be the representative in Ottawa. We have to change the law. We have to eliminate the ability of non-Canadian citizens to choose our elected representatives in nomination contests.

The system is not perfect, but I believe that if Bill C-25 took this necessary step, we would avoid some of the abuse I have seen in my own political party, and that has absolutely taken place in every other political party in Canada. The gaps and the outcomes are too large and too enticing for people not to do it. Frankly, it is not even against the law right now, so why would they not do it? I believe that nomination contests to choose candidates should only be for Canadian citizens. That is not the position of my party. That is the position of Brad Vis, but I feel very strongly about that position.

In 2015, going back to my nomination, I spent a year going around to farms and to gurdwaras. I put myself out there like I had never done before in my life, and I lost. To the Conservative Party's credit, our former lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, recognized there was a problem. Liv Grewal was disqualified. Ironically, the Conservative Party then asked Mike de Jong to run. Mike de Jong was the finance minister for British Columbia at the time. Mike de Jong rejected the invitation from the Conservative Party to be appointed as a candidate, and I was subsequently appointed, three weeks into the writ. I lost that election by 1,000 votes.

When I went back and did a poll-by-poll analysis, the neighbourhoods with the highest concentration of Conservative memberships were getting about 10% Conservative support on the day of the election. Every election since then, I go to Homestead Crescent. In 2015, I got 10% there. In 2019, I got about 30% and it has gone up every election. We cannot deny the fact that there were nefarious political actions that were not just. I know for a fact that people who signed up for the Conservative Party absolutely voted Liberal. I know for a fact that there were many people assigned addresses in West Abbotsford who were not Canadian citizens. That skewed our political data, because we did not have the tools to verify citizenship, as I mentioned earlier.

One of the best ways to improve the integrity of our elections, for all Canadians and for all political parties, is to limit nomination contests solely to Canadians. It is not perfect, but in a country as diverse as ours, with so many foreign pressures and so many diaspora communities that may be influenced by non-state actors in Canada, we have to take that necessary step to protect the integrity of our local races.

I love our democracy. I like the fact that even in challenging times, we can come together and we can agree on improvements in Bill C-25 that would benefit all political parties. That is the right way to go. I hope that all members of Parliament on the procedure and House affairs committee review nomination contests. I know Elections Canada has made a similar recommendation based on stories it has heard from across Canada.

I hope, in good faith, that this bill is amended to include a provision that does not allow for non-Canadians to vote in candidate selections and nominations across Canada.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague drew attention to the fact that we have reports showing that there has been foreign interference within our elections. I am curious if he can expand on that. He talked about the what. He talked about what is going on, but I am curious as to his reflections with regard to the importance of this or the consequence of this if the government continues to turn a blind eye.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will note that Kenny Chiu, a former member of Parliament for Richmond, was the member for one of those ridings in question. Kenny Chiu was originally born in Hong Kong. The PRC targeted Richmond as a result of his statements about the human rights activists in Hong Kong at that time. That is a fact. That was outlined by the Hogue commission as well.

We have the case of Joe Tay and a former member of the Liberal caucus who talked about a bounty on Joe Tay's head in advance of the 2025 election. That individual is no longer in the House of Commons as a result of that.

Those are two very clear examples where the PRC used its influence through organizations like the United Front.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that my colleague referred to himself in the third person in his speech. We cannot use members' names in the House. However, I did not raise that as a point of order. That was a small observation.

On the issue of Bill C‑25, we are talking about foreign interference and the strength of our democratic process. I think that all parties agree that this bill should be studied in committee. There may be some things that need to be amended and we will discuss those.

One important aspect that Bill C‑25 does not address, in terms of foreign interference and the strength of the democratic process, is the public funding of political parties. Mr. Harper eliminated the per-vote subsidy. At the time, it might have been a good idea to do so. However, given what we know today about foreign interference and the problems facing our democratic process, does my colleague not think it would be a good idea to review this no-cost approach? Rather than offering a tax credit, should political parties not be funded based on the number of votes received in an election?

This would help counter foreign interference and strengthen our democratic process.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. However, I do not agree that the public should be subsidizing political parties through a per-vote subsidy. My reason in opposition to that is that we already have very robust Elections Canada returns, which are in fact subsidies already.

I believe our political parties are best served when grassroots members are willing to put forward their own dollars, with the receipt of a generous tax credit, to show that they really believe in what a political party stands for. It takes effort and it takes engagement on the part of all of us in here and all of the candidates who run in every election to gain public support in a way that is often the hardest: getting people to give us money. However, I think it makes our democracy more accountable when there is no broad-based political subsidy. I believe we are best served when we, as individuals, and our political parties have to fight and justify our roles to the Canadian public.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, especially for his personal story about what happened to him in 2015. As he said, nomination contests frequently, for certain parties in certain regions, choose the person who is almost certainly going to win the seat.

I understand what happened in these contests, and I understand the concern, as a result, about having permanent residents participate in the process, but it sounds like in the 2015 nomination there were people other than citizens and permanent residents falsely participating in the process. Can the member envisage a way where permanent residents can continue to participate and we can better protect the system from people who do not have that status?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In preparation for my speech, I thought about it, but the fact is that in 2015 we could not verify one way or the other. Many of those people might have been permanent residents without a Canadian passport and using their Indian passport. That is a fact, and that absolutely happened.

However, I think what Elections Canada and this place would need to do, if permanent residents were to continue to participate, is update the licensing requirements at the provincial and territorial level to outline one's status in Canada. That is an easy fix to the issue I am addressing, to outline if one is a permanent resident, a Canadian citizen or here on another type of visa. That is indeed one way we could address my very real concern.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do support the member's key point that we should have, by now, acted to create the foreign registry for agents who interfere in Canadian democracy. However, knowing him to be an open-minded and fair-minded member, I would ask him if he would reconsider his opposition to the per-vote subsidy for fair financing, recognizing that it was one of the recommendations in the report from Madam Justice Hogue that in order to counter foreign interference, we should revisit the use of a vote subsidy directed by the citizens casting their ballot and giving a very small amount per year to the party of their choice.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Hogue commission does outline that. Again, my personal belief is that democracy is best served when we have to be accountable to the people. The best way to be accountable to Canadian citizens is to convince them that we are good enough that they can open up their chequebook, especially in this time of an affordability crisis, to say, “I believe in you, and I'm going to give you my hard-earned money, because I think you can make a difference in our democracy.” There is no more powerful tool of accountability than one's ability to fundraise one's election and to subsequently win with the support of the grassroots members of our respective communities.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize my hon. colleague's comments on Bill C-25 intersecting with the importance of the implementation of the foreign interference registry. My constituents are very concerned about this delay, noting that, at the same time, they know there are foreign police stations in our country and the government is working on a law enforcement agreement.

How does he see that working together?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that Canada does need to improve its relationship with China, but we need to be clear-eyed and realistic about it. Like my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, I was concerned when the government recently signed a new security agreement with the People's Republic of China, even though we have not enacted our foreign registry yet. There would have been much less apprehension about any such type of agreement had the government already fulfilled its duty on Bill C-70, as it said it was going to do over a year ago today.

Again, I encourage the government members to push their minister of democratic institutions to take the steps he said he was going to take and enact the registry today.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. The bill before us seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act. Over the past few months and weeks, we have seen a significant number of MPs change their political allegiance, despite having been elected under a different banner. Does my colleague think that this might be an opportunity to address the issue of floor crossing, given that we are currently seeing people failing to honour the mandate entrusted to them by their constituents?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I find floor crossing to be a reprehensible action, I do not believe that this power should be taken away from individual MPs. Call me a Conservative, but I believe that, at the end of the day, we are all accountable to the people who elected us. I know that there are varying positions on this in every political party. Ultimately, I believe in accountability to the people who elected me to stand as Brad Vis, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, in the chamber to represent them and to use my due judgment to make decisions on their behalf.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we resume debate, I would like to respond to the question raised by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who asked whether members are allowed to refer to themselves by name or in the third person in the House.

On page 525 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, by Janse and LeBlanc, in paragraph 13.27, entitled “References to Members”, it states:There is no procedural impediment to members referring to themselves by name. The Speaker will not allow a member to refer to another member by name even if a member's proper name is part of a quotation read in the House by another member. As the Chair has repeatedly noted, a member cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

In fact, members are allowed to refer to themselves in the third person. The member has not infringed any of the rules and did not do so during his speech or his questions and comments. I am glad I could clarify that for all members.

I am particularly pleased for the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

Before I begin, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on having referred to himself by his name more than I have ever heard any other member of Parliament do in any speech, ever. I congratulate him on that.

I am going to be dealing largely with foreign interference. Before I do, I just want to say that I strongly support the strong and free elections act going to committee. There is nothing more important in our society, in a democratic western nation, than having the ability to vote and choose our representatives.

I agree with what the previous speaker said. People vote and choose a person to represent them here in Ottawa, and that person, each and every one of us, is accountable to our electors for the decisions we make during the course of our term. The bill makes it far more sure that people are going to be voting based on real information, not misleading information, not deepfakes and not false information coming from foreign sources.

To me, what is most important is that our elections remain free, fair, transparent and impartial. That is the bedrock of our system. When Canadians step up to the ballot box, they quite reasonably expect to cast their vote without interference, manipulation or threats from inside or outside the country. Across the world, however, election threats continue to grow through sophisticated disinformation campaigns, new kinds of foreign interference and digital security attacks, while technology continues to evolve quickly and bad actors switch up their interference tactics.

Canada is not immune to these global realities. While we are fortunate to have a strong and resilient electoral process supported by the trust of Canadians, we must not take that trust for granted. To maintain that trust, we have a responsibility to adapt and strengthen our electoral safeguards by ensuring that our system remains prepared to defend itself against new and emerging threats in a constantly changing world. With the introduction of this bill, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action to achieve this. This bill takes a forward-looking, evidence-based approach to address the vulnerabilities identified by the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada Elections. The bill aims to improve existing safeguards for our electoral system and introduce new ones so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in the fairness and transparency of our federal elections.

More specifically, this bill recognizes two fundamental truths about modern elections. The first is that democracy must be protected at all times, not just during election periods. The second is that threats to democracy are not confined by geographical borders. The bill tackles these challenges head-on by applying existing and new electoral safeguards at all times, not just during elections, and by ensuring that these safeguards apply wherever in the world such breaches may occur.

In order to ensure that Canadian elections are protected year-round, not only during the formal election period, the strong and free elections act would apply at all times. This would include current rules against undue foreign influence, specifically attempts by foreign individuals or organizations to influence someone's vote or prevent them from voting at all.

Additionally, the ban against offering or accepting a bribe to influence someone's vote, as well as against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral voices in order to mislead voters, would no longer to limited to the election period. Furthermore, using a broadcasting station outside Canada to influence whether or not an elector votes during an election, and the candidate or registered party they vote for, would also be prohibited at all times.

Together, these measures would help Canada assume a proactive posture, protecting electors and the integrity and fairness of our elections throughout the year, not only once an election is called. Importantly, these measures would also come into force immediately upon royal assent so Canadians could benefit from these additional protections as soon as possible.

As I said before, threats to our democracy can occur at any time, but they can also occur from anywhere in the world. Indeed, aided in part by increasingly inexpensive, sophisticated and easy-to-use technology, malicious actors are not limited by international borders when seeking to undermine confidence in or affect the outcomes of our elections.

The bill would ensure that six new and enhanced rules under the Canada Elections Act would also apply outside Canada. This includes prohibitions against obstruction of the electoral process or an investigation, impersonation, misleading publications, false statements regarding election activities in the voting process, and the unauthorized use of a computer. There would also be new protections for nomination and leadership contests.

Beginning with the issue of obstruction, let me explain further. Under the bill, the prohibition against obstructing the electoral process or obstructing an investigation would apply equally inside and outside Canada, instead of just in Canada as is currently the case. Similarly, the current prohibition against impersonating certain electoral actors would apply outside Canada, as would the ban against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral actors.

Recognizing the severe harm that may be caused by the intentional spread of false or misleading information, the bill would ensure that knowingly making false statements about election activities and the voting process to disrupt the conduct or results of an election would apply, even if the contravention occurs outside Canada.

This includes statements someone might make that they know to be untrue but that they spread anyway in order to affect the conduct or results of an election, such as intentional falsehoods regarding who may vote in the election, for example telling people they cannot vote unless they are aged 35 or over; about the voting registration process, such as falsely telling people they cannot register from outside the country even if they are Canadian citizens; when, where, and how to vote, and we have all seen text messages where people have sent information saying that people are supposed to vote in false locations; who an individual can vote for, for example text messages saying that people are required to vote for a certain candidate; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated and counted; or, of course, the results of an election.

As is currently the case under the Canada Elections Act, good-faith arguments, opinions or honest mistakes would not be captured by the measures. Additionally, the existing prohibition against the unauthorized use of a computer to affect the results of an election by intercepting information or hacking into a system would also apply to efforts to use a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election inside and outside Canada.

Finally, the bill would apply key protections that help keep our elections and electoral participants safe and secure in nomination contests and leadership contests, recognizing these contests as important democratic events within our broader electoral process. These key protections would include bans against foreign individuals or organizations improperly influencing how or whether someone votes in a contest, offering or accepting a bribe to influence how or whether someone votes in a contest, publishing misleading information falsely claiming to be from a nomination or leadership contest, using deepfakes, and using a computer system to interfere with the conduct or results of a contest.

There is nothing more important than electoral law when we talk about all parties working together. No changes to our process should ever be made if there is not a real consensus in the House of Commons and the Senate. This is where, more than ever, we need to come together at committee, with targeted amendments as needed, to make sure we can all agree on what the best way forward is to keep our system as free and as fair as possible.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his speech.

There is one issue that this bill does not address but that keeps coming up in the House election after election, at least since Stephen Harper's time. I believe that my colleague was a member of Parliament himself then. In any case, I am sure he is familiar with that time. I am talking about the system of political financing that was done away with by the Harper government at the time.

Unfortunately, we see that, sometimes, people with deeper pockets can contribute more to certain political parties. They may even be engaging in some form of influence peddling. That is one of the things this bill seeks to correct. The House leader for the Bloc Québécois proposed eliminating the tax credit for donations to political parties. There would no longer be a tax refund, and the money saved would be used to re-establish a form of political financing, which would mean that the measure would not cost the government anything.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains targeted changes based on recommendations made over the past few years by the various commissions and by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Personally, I believe that tax credits are a good way to encourage contributions and empower political parties. Having said that, I also believe that the study of this bill in committee will be an opportunity to propose amendments and have discussions on these issues.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by wishing a couple of my friends a happy birthday: Sowmya Subramaniam and Nainesh Modi. Their birthdays are coming up in the next couple of weeks. They are fantastic friends and great people.

We all believe in strong and free elections, but we would be naive to ignore the hard truth that many Canadians today carry a healthy skepticism about institutions with respect to accountability and transparency, especially when it comes to elections. We see that skepticism being exploited every day through misinformation and disinformation on social media. We also know from watching other democracies that trust is not lost overnight. It is eroded gradually when safeguards are weakened and clarity is replaced with ambiguity.

In an environment where misinformation spreads rapidly, what concrete measures in the bill would ensure transparency so Canadians can clearly see how elections are administered and protected, and that there are consequences for this not being done?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to the members' friends. It was a very interesting use of the question.

I see nothing worse in society than when members of Parliament, members of the Senate, elected officials or people with roles of responsibility attack the norms of our society, as we see happening around the world. We all have to have trust in our institutions. At the very least, we should all agree that we have trust in our institutions and in our elections.

All the bill could do is criminalize and create civil penalties for people who engage in this misconduct, but we all need to agree that the behaviour needs to be condemned by each and every one of us and by each and every political party, because if Canadian people do not have faith in our own system, we are lost as a country.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that my riding is one of the ones that will have a name change. Cape Spear is one of the most recognized names in the country. It is a beautiful area. However, it represents part of my riding but not all of it, so the riding name is going to change to Cape Spear—Mount Pearl—Paradise, representing the riding more broadly.

The legislation is designed to protect from foreign interference, to protect the privacy of information that political parties collect and to protect against interference, deepfakes and so on, protecting the integrity of our democracy. I am wondering if the member can talk a bit about—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience to respond, in 25 seconds or less.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am proud to represent a riding where the name Mount Royal has lasted since 1935, and I do not have any plans to change it.

Everybody's privacy rights are incredibly important, and I am very pleased with this legislation that would protect people's privacy rights, which is very important.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C‑25. During this debate, we have heard a number of interesting, enlightening and constructive speeches from all parties in the House.

This is a very important bill for ensuring that Canadians continue to trust in our democracy. This bill seeks to protect our elections and our rights, and I am proud to speak to it.

The integrity of our electoral system is based on clear, transparent rules that are adapted to the realities of our time. We have had to evolve and adapt to today's technologies, given the changes that have taken place in terms of communications, legislation and so on.

Trust in democracy is very important. For me, this concept is at the heart of our democracy. Democracy is built on trust between citizens and elected representatives. During election campaigns, when we meet with Canadians, we tell them about our policies and those of our party, and we listen to them in order to strengthen our democracy. Our role as members of Parliament is to be the voice of our constituents and stand up for them.

Even before an election, candidates also have a responsibility to present their values, their vision and their commitment to citizens and Canadians. That is what Bill C‑25 is doing.

I believe that democratic dialogue is essential. Fundraising is also a big part of the electoral process. Several MPs have raised issues directly related to the political party financing. It is good to innovate, improve practices and exercise greater caution when it comes to political financing. However, without rigorous oversight, this can open the door to undue influence. We must therefore protect ourselves against foreign interference, particularly with respect to anonymous funding and money that is difficult to trace, such as cryptocurrencies. Unregistered lobby groups are also an issue.

Historically, we have taken steps to protect our democracy. Since the 1970s, the Canada Elections Act has evolved in order to strengthen the integrity of political financing. Since then, important steps have been taken, notably in 2003 when a cap was put on political contributions, priority was given to individual contributions and restrictions were put on the role of corporations and unions. Today, Canadian citizens can make contributions to political parties, but corporations cannot. In 2006, another significant change was whereby only Canadian citizens and permanent residents are allowed to make contributions. These reforms have provided strong protection for our democracy.

Why do we need Bill C‑25? Its purpose is to modernize everything I just explained. It creates rules to deal with new threats that did not exist before. Since I first arrived in the House in 2015, we have seen the growth of fake news and everything else we have now that did not exist back then.

In particular, the bill tackles third-party financing and foreign sources. Several members talked about foreign interference in their speeches and questions today. We are getting more and more concerned about interference by foreign countries. Anonymous contributions can be difficult to detect when things like cryptocurrency, which I talked about earlier, and prepaid cards are used.

Regulations for third parties are essential too. Third parties play an active role in electoral debates even though they themselves are not candidates. The point is that their financing must be just as transparent as political party financing.

Regulating third parties is also very important. They actively participate in election debates without being candidates themselves. It is essential that their funding be as transparent as that of political parties. The bill emphasizes this point. It ensures that only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can make contributions. Contributions from corporations, unions, and associations are prohibited. There is also an obligation to disclose the source of funds and to file financial statements. When you get into politics, you quickly learn that when you run an election campaign with an official agent and a campaign manager, you have to be squeaky clean. You must be transparent. The sources of donations must be carefully verified.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers and official agents who support all the candidates in every riding across Canada. They do an outstanding job and incredible work for our democracy. They apply the law to ensure transparency with respect to contributions and ensure sound financial management during election campaigns. Candidates are required to submit their financial statements, which ensures transparency and fairness for everyone.

I want to say a quick word about cryptocurrency, or what I refer to as “opaque contributions”, because they are invisible. They are very hard to trace. The source of these donations has to be traced virtually. Anything virtual is harder to trace than something tangible, such as a cheque with photocopies taken of both sides. It is absolutely essential that legislation be passed to protect us in that regard. The anonymous and volatile nature of cryptocurrencies poses a significant risk to electoral integrity. The bill therefore prohibits political contributions made in cryptocurrency. This prevents money laundering. It prevents the transfer of foreign funds that can be easily transferred electronically and it prevents anonymous contributions. This represents a shift to a more modern approach, one that reflects our current reality in 2026.

Since we are talking today about protecting our constituents and their integrity, it is also important to talk about fair representation for our constituents, which is the other aspect of this bill. A strong democracy depends on territorial representation that accurately reflects the reality on the ground and the circumstances faced by local communities. Electoral redistribution has had a significant impact on my riding, which now includes three RCMs.

I inherited an RCM called Collines-de-l'Outaouais. It is an RCM I already knew very well, and I had the opportunity to spend time with its residents during the election campaign. In fact, I wanted to include them. I made a commitment to certain associations and individuals to include them in the new name of my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. It now encompasses three RCMs. There is the Argenteuil RCM on the east side, the Papineau RCM in the centre, and the Collines-de-l'Outaouais RCM. This riding encompasses approximately 41 municipalities across 5,600 square kilometres. I can say that it is important to include Collines-de-l'Outaouais.

The current name, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, does not adequately reflect this new reality. The new name will be Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines. I hope it is adopted in the House so that I can share the good news with my constituents. On behalf of my riding, I would like to say that this is not merely an administrative detail, as it concerns the collective identity of the people who live there. It is important to me to accurately reflect the communities that make up the region. The people of Collines-de-l'Outaouais need to be able to identify with their federal representation, and the people of Papineau also need to see their region fully recognized. That is why my riding should be renamed Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support any initiative that seeks to strengthen our democracy and our electoral system. We agree on the importance of providing a framework for the longest ballot committee by ensuring that an official agent may represent only one candidate per election. However, is there a risk that some people may act as a fake official agent on paper in order to circumvent this rule?