Debates of April 24th, 2026

The House resumed from April 16 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 second time and referred to a committee.

Strong and Free Elections Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an important piece of legislation that I know Canadians, as a whole, what to see enacted for the upcoming election, whenever that might be. There are significant changes to reinforce Canada's democracy in a very positive way. One of the gravest mistakes we can make as parliamentarians is to take our democracy for granted. That is something this government will not do. We understand and appreciate the need for changing the Elections Act, ensuring the security and protection of our future elections, and even what takes place between elections.

First, I approach this issue from a personal perspective of having been blessed by the residents of Winnipeg North in many ways. For five provincial elections, I represented the wonderful constituency of Inkster, and for six federal elections, I have represented Winnipeg North. I have been a candidate more than a dozen times. Obviously, not every election was successful, but I truly appreciate the efforts and support I received, whether it is from family, volunteers or, most importantly, the residents of Winnipeg North. That is why, in all circumstances, I like to believe that I put the residents of Winnipeg North first and foremost in making sure they are represented, whether it is in the city of Winnipeg or here in Ottawa. I want to give a special shout-out of appreciation and express my gratitude in being the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North.

Having said that, I mention it in part because I understand the many dynamics of an election and what occurs during an election. One thing that is nice about this legislation is that it does not just deal with the election period. There are all sorts of activities that take place year-round that we need to at least be aware of. Bill C-25, which is before us today, deals with a number of issues. I know some have more of a public interest, if I can put it that way, for example the issue of counting unduly long ballots. That has been an issue in by-elections and in the last couple of general elections, and justifiably so. We do not want to do anything to discourage candidates who, generally speaking, want to represent a constituency. I ran against many of them over the years. It is important to recognize that public policy has always enabled individuals interested in putting their name forward, getting material out, knocking on doors and meeting with the voters. This is something we want to and will protect. Let there be no doubt about that.

However, one thing we have experienced is a long list of names being submitted in order to prove a political point, to a certain degree. As a result, it has brought a great deal of confusion to the process. What we are suggesting in this legislation is that two specific actions be taken. The first action is to say that voters will now be able to sign only one nomination form for a candidate, and each candidate in the riding will need a unique official agent. As we all know, those who want to be candidates in an election, whether federal or provincial, have to get signatures. The signatures are required. I remember an argument about why they need to get signatures, as opposed to giving money to register their name. They have to show some intent and get out there and get support. They have to get 100 or whatever number of signatures in order to be able to say they have knocked on doors or visited the voters in the area and acquired, either themselves or through their volunteers, the required number of signatures in order to get their names placed on the ballot. Some have chosen to take that particular rule and ultimately say, “Here are 100 candidates. Will you sign off on 100 candidates?” This is something I believe would help address the issue of the long ballot.

The other is the official agent. Today's official agent does so much for every campaign. I suspect there is not a member of Parliament in the House of Commons today who would not recognize how important our official agents are in a campaign. That person is a very busy person during an election and post-election. I find it very hard to imagine how one individual can be an official agent for 100 candidates or a large number of candidates in one riding. We are not saying that an official agent cannot be an official agent for two or three or whatever number of candidates, but in different ridings, if that is the real desire. When I was with the Manitoba Liberal Party as an MLA, we would often get one official agent working with several different candidates, but in different ridings.

I believe those two measures in particular would deal appropriately with the countering of what I would suggest are unduly long ballots. This is something I believe our constituents want to see.

Combatting deepfakes to mislead is another very serious issue this legislation attempts to deal with. It would be expanded to ensure that it applies to realistic deepfakes. Of course, political satire and parodies would be exempt. Anything that is in good-faith views, if I can put it that way, we are not after that at all with the legislation. It is not an issue of trying to put in place censorship.

One of the things we need to recognize is that technology has advanced, and I am truly amazed at what a combination of AI and a mischievous mind can actually do to deceive people. We have to be aware of that. More and more, we are going to see deepfakes, especially in close ridings, where candidate X is saying something on social media but in reality it is not the candidate actually saying it. This is because of the evolution of AI and high tech and, as I say, mischievous volunteers, which is putting it nicely. Their intent is to mislead the voter in a way that is going to have an impact on the life of a candidate and on the ultimate results in an election.

It is absolutely critical that we, as a House, deal with that issue. The legislation attempts to do just that, by targeting the misuse and abuse we have seen already, to a certain degree, in regard to election information. I remember, a couple of elections back, the use of what they called robocalls, where an area was told that a poll station had been changed. It was a misdirection of a large number of voters, using a voice broadcast, robocalls or whatever we want to call it. It is all the same. Hundreds if not thousands of people are contacted and told something that is just not true and that is meant to prevent that particular person from voting or to discourage someone from voting by telling them where their poll station is or that it has been closed. These types of things have happened in the past, and I suspect they could happen again in the future. It is one of the reasons it is absolutely critically important that we move on that issue.

In terms of foreign interference, we have found and learned that a lot of these activities do not just occur inside Canada. For example, if we have a mischievous volunteer, to put it nicely, who happens to be outside of Canada, the laws from within would in fact apply to that individual. A lot of the rules we have would apply, and that is the way it should be.

I would ultimately argue that the recommendations and the legislation that we have before us today are based on the foreign interference inquiry, the Canada elections group and the commissioner of Canada elections, all of which, either directly or indirectly, have contributed to the legislation we have here, not to mention the feedback we have from previous standing committees or members expressing their opinions through news media and so forth. It is very much a holistic approach to dealing with the issue of our elections.

There are areas where we would be protecting the nomination and leadership contestants, such as undue foreign influence on how to vote in contests, offering or accepting bribes about how to vote in a contest, intimidating someone on how to vote in a contest, realistic deepfakes of contestants that intend to mislead, misleading publications falsely purporting to be issued by a contestant, and unauthorized use of a computer to affect the conduct or results of an election.

Again, I would emphasize that this is not about censorship. We are not talking about good-faith views. That is a very important aspect, because we can easily slide down that slippery slope. It is recognizing the need for some of these changes to take place.

We have the cabinet directive. Things take place during an election, but we also need to recognize that things can take place in between elections. The cabinet directive on the coordinated response to threats to elections would be extended, justifiably so. Membership of that would include the Clerk of the Privy Council, the national security to the PM, the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety. Think in terms of foreign affairs and where we could develop an all-party consensus in a non-partisan way. The potential incidents that may be threats to the integrity of our elections are what this panel would deal with, and not only during elections. We have to think outside of elections. That is something the legislation also deals with.

There are a number of measures within the legislation that deal with what would be classified as AMPs or financial penalties and provide opportunities for the commissioner to be able to deal with violations.

Not all violations should be treated equally, I would suggest. I had an incident, for example, on election day. I was out doing some car waving and we had a Facebook Live, and then we boosted the Facebook Live. Technically, candidates cannot do that on election day because it is considered an advertisement. It was absolutely innocent. No one even thought it was wrong.

Ensuring that we have increased opportunity for administrative monetary penalties with these changes is something that all members should support. Members will find that these penalties have been applied to different candidates and political parties. It would allow for a more efficient system, in the sense that honest mistakes do happen.

However, when the mistakes are intentional, that is when we need to ensure that there are teeth within the legislation and that we have the opportunity to ensure that there is some accountability. This is something that is within the legislation in a very real way, to ensure that individuals who are directly or even indirectly involved are so in such a manner that does not take away from or threaten Canada's democracy.

Nowadays there are many things that can take place during an election that could have a profound impact on the outcomes. We saw this just recently with Tatiana in her riding, winning with one vote in the last federal election. Every vote counts. I was really encouraged, I must say on a side point, to see that her margin went from one vote to 800 votes. The example validates the importance of every vote, and we should collectively never take it for granted.

Canada is very fortunate, in the sense that we have Elections Canada as an independent agency. Elections Canada is recognized around the world for the fine work it does in protecting the institution of our democracy here at home. I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with election officials, and I have always reinforced my confidence, even if at times I disagree with some of the things that are being said, in Elections Canada and Elections Manitoba, because I believe it is absolutely critical that we recognize the work they do and respect it. Part of that is looking at ways we can continue to improve the system.

I would like to share some personal thoughts in regard to changes. We hear a lot about how to get more people to vote. I believe there are things we can do. Some jurisdictions have done it a little better than other jurisdictions. I, for one, for example, believe that given today's technology, we could incorporate some of the more high-profile areas like malls. Canadians love going to the mall. If we can better utilize those types of public and private facilities to make it easier for Canadians to vote, I am game for it, and I would encourage Elections Canada and provincial and territorial jurisdictions to look at ways we can enhance voters' opportunities to vote.

I am not convinced about Internet voting. I have not been sold on it, far from it. I suspect that Elections Canada at the very least is looking into that area. I would very much want more public discussion on voting over the Internet. With respect to mail-in ballots, I think, again, that I am open to some more dialogue on that. Mail-in ballots have actually increased. I am all for including advance polling within the legislation and for looking at how we can increase voter participation.

I look forward to the bill's coming back from third reading after it goes through committee, because I know that, like me, members of all political parties have a keen interest in how our elections are run. I know that the minister and the government as a whole are very much open to good ideas if we can improve the legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's presence. I hope he is doing well.

What I would say is simply that the Chief Electoral Officer, years ago, went to the PROC committee and asked the government to do something about the ballot issue of having the longest ballot committee causing such consternation in repeated by-election after by-election, and even in the last election.

Does the hon. member regret how his government let Canadian voters down by waiting so long to introduce the simple amendment to the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what pleases me is that when Canada elected a new Prime Minister less than a year ago, the Prime Minister made the issue a priority. It has taken us not years but months to bring the legislation before the House, and not only the legislation but also a tangible idea that would actually deal with the issue.

I believe that by having voters able to nominate only one candidate in a particular riding, and by ensuring that we could not have one official agent for 100 candidates in the same riding, the issue with the long ballots would be resolved. I anticipate that the opposition will support that aspect of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my question with a comment. I did not raise a point of order, but the member referred to the member for Terrebonne by her given name rather than by her riding name, which should not happen in the House. Perhaps that escaped the Speaker's attention, so I just wanted to give my friend opposite a friendly reminder of that. I do not have an issue with anything he said except that.

Here is the question that I want to ask. The bill before us this morning seeks to prevent people from signing more than one nomination paper. I think it is a mistake to do that because it could result in fewer candidates running in an election. Of course, one of the objectives of this bill is to limit the number of candidates. We agree with that objective, but we do not think that this particular measure is necessary. The other measures in the bill are more than sufficient to achieve that end.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that voters are being asked to sign only one nomination paper. I think that poses a risk of making their votes public, because people will sign only the nomination papers of the candidate they plan to vote for. That is a significant concern.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. The member for Terrebonne is an outstanding individual, and we are very pleased.

I understand what the member is saying. The government has already put forward the legislation, and it is fairly substantive. A number of changes are being proposed. There is an opportunity. As much as possible, we want to try to build consensus on the many different aspects within the legislation. If there are some specifics, I would be happy, as the parliamentary secretary ultimately trying to provide some advice on the legislation, to advance it within the government if the member feels frustrated in any way.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in Bill C-25 that I think are important and supportive. I am feeling charitable this morning, so I am going to mention three different areas and will let the parliamentary secretary decide where he might want to respond.

First, I think it is important that Bill C-25 would extend some of the foreign interference provisions into nominations and into leadership contests. Second, I like the provisions around political financing and walking a balance with regard to transparency, and also the idea that sometimes advance notice has drawn in a whole host of protest, I think unfairly disallowing Canadians from participating in political financing in a way that should be supported. The last piece is around artificial intelligence. There is a piece in the bill around putting in stronger provisions, particularly in a world where there is a rise of disinformation online and how that can be accelerated by artificial intelligence.

The parliamentary secretary can decide which of the three he wants to raise, but I would like his thoughts on one of those three subjects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all those issues are very important. I believe that the greatest threat to our democracy today, if we do not take action on it, is artificial intelligence and the potential for what I call a mischievous volunteer, a third party.

Everything can be tapped into it today through social media and different forms of communication. My concern is that it does not take very much time to cause a lot of confusion, especially when, through the use of AI, there can be a so-called candidate saying something the candidate did not say. It concerns me greatly, and I do not think we have done enough on that particular issue.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the earlier reply to my question, the member said that Canadians elected a prime minister. I think that is a misnomer that we need to correct. Canadians elect MPs.

In fact, last night on a panel, Althia Raj said, “This Prime Minister definitely has an authoritarian streak. We've seen this with all types of legislation. I was struck after the by-election when he referred to his MPs in English as his ‘deputies’. At first he was saying that. I thought it was just an error in translation; he means ‘députés’, and then he was just saying it in English. But then he keeps repeating it, so I'm starting to wonder if he actually thinks members of Parliament are his deputies to do his bidding in the House of Commons, which is not their job.”

Does the member believe he is the deputy to the Prime Minister, or does he serve his riding?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I said right at the very beginning of my comments that my first priority is the constituents I represent. I sit in a wonderful national caucus that has 174 members. I can assure the member that we are all equal in our caucus.

Yes, the Prime Minister has a mission. The mission is very simple: to build the strongest economy in the G7, to build Canada strong for all Canadians. Every Liberal member of Parliament has gladly accepted and agreed that this is our goal. Every Liberal member of Parliament will strive seven days a week to ensure that Canada becomes the strongest and healthiest country in the G7.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill.

Obviously, we want to improve it, including with regard to party financing. The Bloc Québécois once introduced a bill to reinstate public party financing and lower the limit on personal donations to ensure that parties are not funded purely by the wealthiest individuals, a practice that often grants them privileged access.

Why does the government not consider reinstating this system of public funding for political parties, where each vote would be associated with a specific amount? As I recall, it was the Chrétien government that implemented this system in 2004 before it was abolished.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the issue of financing political parties and so forth. It is with pride that I can say that we can contrast Canada's financial accountability and the way in which we raise funds to that of the provinces and other countries.

Some of the provinces, I would suggest, might need some improvement. I do not know the details of the provinces, but at the national level, I think that in many ways Canada leads the G20 countries in how we appropriately ensure that there is a sense of equality, and that the people we represent understand and appreciate that politicians, at least here in Canada, are not going to be bought off by someone giving a $5,000 donation to their campaign.

I like the way we structure the financing of political parties. I think it has been done exceptionally well over the last number of elections since it was implemented. Again, if the member has—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. His time for questions and comments has elapsed.

For government bills, at the end of the five hours, it switches. Members no longer need to indicate that they are splitting their time. If members are interested, they can find the speaking rules for government legislation, what happens before and after the five hours, in Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 74.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start this morning by thanking my grade 2 social studies teacher, Mrs. Rose Klein. It was many election cycles ago when I was in her class, which is where I first learned about elections. I could not have imagined that one day I would be standing here on the floor of the House of Commons debating a bill to make changes to the Canada Elections Act. That certainly speaks to the importance of having positive role models in one's life.

Bill C-25 is an act to make certain amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I think we can all agree that the integrity of the electoral process is fundamental to our democracy. While many Canadians may watch politics on TV and may talk politics over coffee, I think it is fair to say that for the vast majority of Canadians, their most important and meaningful contribution to the democratic process is to actually go down to the polling station on election day and mark an X by the name of the candidate of their choice. Therefore, it is important that we as lawmakers get this right.

Of particular concern in recent years are the disruptive activities of a group calling itself the longest ballot committee. Quite simply, it is a group of troublemakers who seek to disrupt the electoral process by recruiting large numbers of frivolous candidates who then flood Elections Canada offices with paperwork. As a result, ridings targeted by the longest ballot committee have, as the name implies, unmanageably long ballots, up to a metre in length in some cases. In last year's general election in the riding of Carleton, and in several by-elections in previous years, nearly 100 candidates appeared on the ballot. This has led to excessively long paper ballots and a great deal of frustration among voters and Elections Canada workers. In fact, Elections Canada actually had to change the format of the ballot to be write-in ballots for a by-election last year and another by-election last week, because of the disruptive activities of the longest ballot committee.

Last fall, the procedure and House affairs committee studied this matter in depth, and I was pleased to see the broad consensus among MPs from all parties to fix this problem. In fact, one of the recommendations of the committee's final report was for the government to introduce legislation to close some of the loopholes in the Canada Elections Act that were being exploited by the longest ballot committee. That legislation has come to the House of Commons in the form of Bill C-25, which we are debating here today.

I would like to go through a few of the report's recommendations in detail and share my thoughts about the potential effectiveness of curtailing the disruptive activities of the longest ballot committee.

The first recommendation relates to collecting signatures for a candidate's nomination papers. Right now, in order to run for a seat in the House of Commons, a candidate's paperwork must include the signatures of 100 eligible voters in the candidate's riding. However, there is presently no rule against a person signing the nomination papers of more than one candidate. There is also no rule against people signing the papers before the candidate's name has been filled in at the top. What the longest ballot committee was doing was getting people to sign the papers of many different candidates while the candidate's name was still left blank. This made it easier for it to recruit frivolous candidates whose only intention was to disrupt the electoral process. Bill C-25 closes this loophole by allowing people to sign the nomination papers of one candidate only. While I do not believe this will solve the problem completely, it will constrain the ability of the longest ballot committee to get frivolous candidates on the ballot.

Another matter that received considerable attention at the procedure and House affairs committee was the official agents for candidates. The Canada Elections Act requires that each candidate have an official agent, but there is nothing stopping one person from serving as the official agent for multiple candidates in the same riding.

I know that everyone enjoys a good sports analogy, so I will relay to the House that some of the witnesses at committee said that allowing one person to serve as the official agent for multiple candidates in the same riding was like the coach being allowed to coach multiple teams in the same league. That is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law, given that elections are inherently competitive processes. I am glad to see that particular recommendation has made its way into Bill C-25 as well.

However, I would again caution members from believing that this would completely solve the problem. Indeed, in last week's by-election in Terrebonne, which was one of the ridings targeted by the longest ballot committee, the longest ballot committee did have unique official agents for almost all of the candidates. If I could make a prediction about the effectiveness of unique official agents in future elections, it would seem that instead of the longest ballot committee recruiting, say, 100 frivolous candidates, they would have to settle for recruiting 50 frivolous candidates and 50 frivolous official agents, which is no doubt a significant improvement, but probably not enough to dissuade the longest ballot committee from interfering with future elections. In summary, I think that the official recommendations in the committee's report and their inclusion in Bill C-25 is a positive step to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee.

I would be surprised if it solved the problem completely. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight one of the other ideas that witnesses discussed at committee but was not included in the official recommendations in the final report, namely the reinstatement of mandatory monetary deposits by the candidates. For context, it used to be that a $1,000 deposit was required when a candidate registered to run in an election in this country. In 2017, this requirement was ruled unconstitutional after a court challenge by the same people behind the longest ballot committee. It was this court case that opened the door for the longest ballot committee and their current practice of running large numbers of frivolous candidates, all at no cost to themselves.

I would also like to mention that while the judge's ruling indicated that a $1,000 deposit was an unreasonable infringement of section 3 of the charter, the ruling left open the possibility of a deposit of a smaller, less burdensome amount. It is also worth noting that in last week's by-election in Terrebonne and in last year's by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot, many of the longest ballot committee candidates did not receive a single vote. They could not convince a single person to vote for them, nor could they be bothered to show up to vote for themselves.

Therefore, my personal view and my personal suggestion is that if the measures included in Bill C-25 are not sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee, then the next step should be to revisit the idea of a very nominal deposit and the requirement of receiving a very nominal number of votes on election day. Doing so would cause frivolous candidates to think twice before reaching into their wallets, while at the same time respecting the charter rights of non-frivolous candidates. Hopefully it does not come to that.

I am hopeful that the measures introduced in Bill C-25 will be sufficient. I look forward to supporting this bill going to committee and having it studied in further detail. In summary, I will be pleased to vote for this bill at second reading. I look forward to any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member's comments. However, I disagree with the idea that one would have to make a financial deposit in order to be able to say to the people they want to represent that they want their name on the ballot.

I am inclined to support the court decision. However, I would again recommend that the member give it more thought. I can recall an incident where someone said to me, “Why is it that the volunteers can collect signatures for your nomination? Why are you not obligated to acquire them?” That might be an alternative.

The PROC committee has an opportunity, as soon we can get the legislation to the committee. In second reading, I often promote getting bills to committee—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance for the member for Regina—Wascana to respond.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on becoming a grandfather for the fourth time, earlier this month. I wish him well with the new bundle of joy.

I am hopeful that the measures in Bill C-25 are sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee. However, I think it is very telling that its members were the ones behind the 2017 court case, which struck down the requirement of the $1,000 deposit. It is also very telling that, after that court case, they opened the door to their current disruptive activities. We will have to take a wait-and-see approach, and we will have to wait and see.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not reform political party financing to restore public funding.

As we know, the more an individual can donate, the more likely it is to create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption. For example, there was a case where a former prime minister authorized the opening of a new bank in Toronto specifically for the Chinese community in British Columbia. The very next day, he received 45 donations to his riding, each at the maximum amount, from individuals who were members of those communities in Toronto and British Columbia.

All this corruption, or the appearance of corruption, could be eliminated by introducing public funding for political parties and limiting the amount individuals can donate.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly undue influence and undue foreign influence is a concern in our elections.

It is good to have a large number of grassroots Canadians participating in the democratic process, which is certainly preferable to a small number of well-to-do insiders. However, I would caution against the idea of public funds for parties or a per-vote subsidy for parties. If individuals want to get people to vote for them, they have to go out, knock on doors and do some fundraising at the same time. I think that having a nominal amount of fundraising for candidates and for parties is a good thing.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill famously remarked that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The parliamentary system is not a perfect system. It is only as good as the actors in it. When 93% of the electorate votes for the party and not for the candidate, and only 7% vote for the candidate, that is a distortion of democracy in the way parliamentary democracy is set up.

The member mentioned reinstating the $1,000, because the same problem applies to the people in the long ballot. They are doing this. I was wondering if the member could talk about the $1,000 reinstatement—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to let the member for Regina—Wascana respond, in less than 30 seconds.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I should be clear that I am hopeful the measures included in Bill C-25 are sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee. If they are not, then we will be right back here scratching our heads and looking for new ways to curtail its activities. I think that mandatory deposits are the most promising way, given the past activities of the committee.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House of Commons to speak in support of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.

This legislation represents an important step in protecting Canada's electoral process in a variety of ways, including from emerging challenges posed, as my colleague across the way just mentioned, by the efforts of the longest ballot committee to make things more difficult and more challenging for Elections Canada. The bill deals with the challenges posed by an official agent being able to serve as an official agent for more than one candidate. It also deals with the challenges that are posed by emerging technological threats, such as the misuse of artificial intelligence. For the sake of my remarks here in the House today, I would like to focus on the latter.

Modern technology has transformed how we communicate and access information. It connects us, informs us and strengthens participation in our democracy, but it can be misused. Bill C-25 recognizes this emerging challenge and includes a clear and necessary response to a particularly challenging application of artificial intelligence. Of course, I am referring to deepfake technology. Deepfakes are artificially generated or manipulated images, videos or audio recordings that make it appear as though someone has said or done something, even if they never did. These fabrications can be highly convincing, and a reasonable person could be tricked into believing that they are real.

Under the Canada Elections Act, it is already illegal to impersonate certain electoral actors, including, of course, the candidates and the chief electoral officer, with the intent of misleading voters. However, these provisions were developed before the rapid rise of modern technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and they do not fully capture the risk posed by deepfake technology. Bill C-25 would modernize this framework. It explicitly extends the existing impersonation offences to include the creation and distribution of realistic and misleading images, videos and audio of electoral actors intended to deceive Canadians.

We have seen cases around the world where audio and video deepfakes of political figures have been used to spread disinformation. Canada is not immune to these challenges. Canadian cybersecurity experts made that clear in their recent assessment of threats to the democratic process. For example, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security issued a warning that AI is already reshaping the way that elections are being targeted.

In just two years, we went from a few isolated incidents to more than 100 cases of AI being used to interfere with over 25% of global elections held between 2023 and 2024. This is no hypothetical risk, but a real and growing trend. Furthermore, the tools behind this trend are getting cheaper, faster and more readily available by the day. What once required sophisticated resources can now be accomplished using widely available, inexpensive software.

Democracy is built on trust. Voters must be able to make decisions based on reliable information.

If we do not take action, and take action now, what we will inevitably see in the years ahead is the erosion of trust in our democratic process. That is precisely the malicious objective of those who deploy these tools. It is because of our robust election laws and the general health of our democratic system that our cybersecurity experts have assessed that it is unlikely that disinformation from artificial intelligence would, on its own, undermine the integrity of our elections. It will not happen yet, and that is reassuring, but it is not a reason to delay action. The same experts emphasize that technology is improving and access to it is expanding rapidly. In short, we know the threat is growing and we need to take action.

As Parliament has responded to evolving challenges to our elections on a regular basis in the past, we must act again. Through Bill C-25, we are doing exactly that. We are being proactive, as we should be, in addressing this rapidly emerging issue. By expanding the existing ban on impersonation to capture deepfakes, we are sending a powerful message that Canada will not allow technological mischief to undermine the integrity of our elections.

Let me also emphasize that this addition reflects an appropriate balance between protecting free speech and combatting malicious interference. This bill would not restrict legitimate political expression, nor would it limit political debate or target opinion, criticism or satire. In fact, the Canada Elections Act explicitly permits parody and other forms of lawful expression that are an important part of our democratic discourse. Bill C-25 would not change that. Instead, what Bill C-25 targets is intentional deception, specifically the use of synthetic media to mislead voters about real people or events.

To be clear, the Canada Elections Act already prohibits fraud and false statements during elections. Deepfakes are nothing more than a sophisticated version of the same practices, using technology to manipulate voices and images, rather than enlisting a person to pose as someone else.

These examples are not expressions of opinion. They are tools for manipulation, and there must be clear consequences for using them.

That is an important part of this piece of legislation that finds that balance to allow the electorate freedom of speech, especially during elections. Every single one of us in this room is here because we ran in an election. We debated. We perhaps had town halls and invited our citizens to challenge our ideas. Every one of us here has had somebody disagree with some of what we have put forward personally or with what perhaps our party or our leader has put forward as an idea or a policy. That is protected, and will always be protected. This piece of legislation would not change that.

Bill C-25 proposes targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect and secure our elections. It aims to ensure that, when Canadians participate in an election, they can do so based on reliable information from trusted sources. This is about preserving the integrity of our democratic processes in the face of rapidly changing technology. Throughout our history, Canada has adapted its institutions to meet new challenges, and this would be no different. We have strengthened safeguards in response to evolving threats in the past, and we have done so while upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms that define us as a proud nation.

The Canada Elections Act is renowned for its election safeguards, robust political financing rules and transparency requirements as a result of continual, gradual updates and improvements put forward by members on all sides of this House, from all political parties, on both sides of the aisle. Bill C-25 would add reasonable guardrails. It is measured and targeted to the challenges we face. It reflects the reality that the nature of electoral interference is changing and that our laws must change with it.

I invite all members to support this legislation and, when it goes to committee, to add ways we can improve upon it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for my colleague.

From my understanding of the bill, the government would be released from the obligation to disclose the names and addresses of donors. Is that indeed the case? If that is so, I think it opens the door to corruption.

If people can make donations as high as $1,700 and their names are not disclosed, there is no longer a way to check whether ministers are giving access to certain activities based on donations. There are also all the examples of corruption that have already been identified.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the case. However, I encourage my hon. colleague to share his concerns when the bill gets to committee. I also encourage him to discuss how we can improve the bill to head off the examples he mentioned.