Debates of June 11th, 2026

Strong and Free Elections Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud.

Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music.

With that out of the way, I will return to today's topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem.

I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it.

However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter's privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures.

This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations.

The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing.

The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name.

The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic.

As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”.

I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750.

As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important.

There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding.

I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding.

It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground.

That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech.

He talked about how big some ridings are. I know that he is known for being very good about travelling around to different parts of his riding. Everyone there knows him and loves him.

He also talked about political financing. Would this bill not have been a good opportunity to review our political financing system, which is not particularly fair to people who want to participate constructively in the democratic debate?

I would like him to elaborate on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north.

I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists.

That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

The idea of public funding is really important. He said that Quebec does it. Canada did it at one time but does not do it now.

Can he explain again how Canada could learn from what Quebec is doing in terms of public funding?

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this.

Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it.

I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest.

Can my colleague elaborate on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map.

As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries.

In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country.

However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives.

We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec's electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then.

Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L'Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L'Assomption RCM. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding.

However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive.

I would like to know what my colleague suggests.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony.

I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding.

There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public's vote would be better represented in Parliament.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not born in Canada, but Canada is my adopted home. It is a place that I am very loyal to and committed to. As the member of Parliament representing the beautiful riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills, which is so diverse, with over 43 languages spoken there, I can talk about Bill C-25 and the importance of not just the perception of having free and fair elections but the actuality of it and making sure that Canadians have faith within our democracy.

Canadians depend on free and fair elections. They need to be confident in our electoral process, confident that they can choose leaders who will prioritize communities here in Canada, including in Mississauga—Erin Mills. This is the importance of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.

As the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills, I am proud to represent one of the most diverse communities in the country. One fact that unites all citizens in my riding is that democracy depends on trust. Canadians want to know that our elections are fair, that the information they receive is real, that ill-intentioned actors cannot manipulate our system and that the people who participate in public life can do so with confidence.

This is why the bill matters. In Mississauga—Erin Mills, families, newcomers, students, seniors and small businesses all bring different experiences and different perspectives to our democracy, but they share a common expectation, and that is that our institutions will protect the integrity of our vote and our democracy. They expect laws that keep pace with modern threats, whether those threats come in the form of foreign interference, digital deception, dark money or intimidation aimed at political candidates.

One practical problem the bill would address is the issue of unduly long ballots. In any riding with a large and busy electorate, including Mississauga—Erin Mills, a ballot that is intentionally overloaded does not strengthen our democracy. It creates confusion for voters, increases the burden on election workers and slows down the counting process.

That is why Bill C-25 proposes measures to reduce unduly long ballots, including allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form and requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent. These may sound like technical amendments, but for constituents who simply want an election process that is orderly, accessible and credible, these are important protections.

The bill also responds to a newer and growing threat, which is digital impersonation and deepfakes. In many Canadian communities, and especially in Mississauga—Erin Mills, where residents are highly connected, receive information across many platforms and in many languages and often rely on digital communication to follow public affairs, the spread of false content can be especially damaging.

A vital aspect of Bill C-25 is the creation of a new offence against these impersonations. It would also create a new offence against intentionally spreading false information about election processes or the voting process when someone knows it is false and intends to disrupt the conduct of an election or affect its results. This is not about limiting legitimate debate. It is about protecting the public from deliberate deception.

The bill would also close important gaps by extending key election-related offences beyond the formal election period and into nomination and leadership contests. This matters because democratic integrity does not begin once a writ is dropped. In ridings like mine, where many people are politically engaged long before election day, these earlier stages of the process also deserve protection and scrutiny.

Bill C-25 would extend existing offences such as undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, intimidation, impersonation, misleading publications, unauthorized computer use and broadcasting outside Canada. They also apply to nomination and leadership contests. This is a crucial reform because vulnerabilities in those contests can undermine confidence in the entire democratic process.

The bill would also strengthen political financing rules, because Canadians want to know that their democracy is not being distorted by hidden or foreign money. Constituents expect transparency, accountability and fairness. They do not want anonymous or untraceable financial channels that are used to influence politics behind the scenes. Bill C-25 would prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions, such as cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards, money orders and other prepaid products.

It would strengthen restrictions on third parties and foreign entities involved in regulated political activities. It would further ensure that third parties can pay for regulated political activities only with contributions from Canadian citizens and permanent residents or with their own money under limited conditions, while also barring foreign entities from contributing property or other services to those activities. That matters, because confidence in democracy is weakened when people believe money moves government illicitly.

This bill also responds to the need for stronger enforcement. Canadians across the country want to know that election law is not only well written but also actually enforceable. This legislation would expand accountability to include those who are party to a violation, as well as those who conspire, attempt, advise or act as accessories after the fact. It would expand the administrative monetary penalty regime, increase maximum penalties and provide the commissioner of Canada elections with stronger tools to summon witnesses, compel evidence under oath and require the production or preservation of relevant documents. These measures are important, because a law without effective enforcement is not a real safeguard.

There is another aspect of this bill that is especially relevant to public life today, and that is physical security and personal information. In an era when harassment can spread quickly online and personal information can be misused in harmful ways, many people are understandably hesitant to participate in politics. That concern is real in every part of our country. People in my riding want a democracy that is open, but they also want one that is safe. They want candidates, volunteers, election workers and community leaders to be able to take part without fearing that their home address, personal information or security will be carelessly exposed.

Bill C-25 takes tangible steps in that direction. It would limit the publication of personal address information for returning officers, remove the requirement for a five-day advance notice of regulated fundraising events, limit the location details in post-event reports, increase reimbursement for eligible personal security expenses and establish stronger privacy policy requirements for federal political parties. Those privacy measures include requiring safeguards proportionate to the sensitivity of the information, appropriate steps in the event of a breach, equivalent protection when information is transferred and prohibitions on selling personal information or providing false or misleading information about why it is being collected. For citizens who care deeply about privacy, security and responsible public institutions, these are not minor administrative details; they are essential to our democratic confidence.

This bill is also important because it is grounded in expert recommendations. The measures in Bill C-25 respond to recommendations from the public inquiry into foreign interference, from the Chief Electoral Officer and from the commissioner of Canada elections, and build on measures that had previously been proposed in a former bill, Bill C-65. This matters because protecting democracy should not be a partisan reflex. It should be a careful, evidence-based effort in order for us to ensure that our laws remain responsive to evolving threats, which are very real.

Our constituents understand that democracy is strongest when people trust both the process and the institutions behind it. They want to know that ballots are manageable, that disinformation will be confronted, that foreign influence and foreign interference will be kept out, that personal information will be protected and that those who break election law will face meaningful consequences.

Bill C-25 would advance that work. It would protect the vote, the process and participants, and it would help protect the public trust that holds our democracy together. For those reasons, I am very proud to support the strong and free elections act, Bill C-25.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-219, an act to establish judicial independence day, and Bill S-221, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canada jay as the national bird of Canada.

Combatting Hate Act

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, ON]

moved the second reading of, and concurrence in, the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my speaking time with the member for Hull—Aylmer.