Bill C-25, Strong and Free Elections Act · Second reading · now law Where it stands →
What the law does
The law amends the Canada Elections Act to set new bans on foreign influence, bribery, unauthorized computer use, and false information about elections or candidate nominations. It restricts voting in nomination or leadership contests, bans anonymous contributions to political entities and third parties, and requires parties to have privacy policies. It also raises administrative monetary penalties, gives enforcement powers to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and changes the names of some electoral districts.
“We support this bill and will vote for it. It protects elections by stopping foreign influence, lies, bribes, and anonymous donations. It also gives the election commissioner more power to punish rule-breakers. But we want to change one part. The bill stops people from signing nomination papers for more than one candidate. Signing a paper just helps someone run. It does not mean you will vote for them. The government should not limit how many candidates a person can support.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25, which amends the Canada Elections Act. We think the intention of the bill is good. We agree in principle and we will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. However, there are some nuances I need to talk about. Of course we agree with the bans regarding foreign influence, election disinformation, election corruption, and those so-called “rewards”, or bribes, the infamous “brownies”. These things urgently need to be regulated. We also agree when it comes to addressing the problems with nomination contests and leadership races. When it comes to political party financing, parties are also prohibited from accepting and using certain donations, namely those from anonymous sources. That is important, and we need to keep that up. Questions were raised about that earlier in the discussions on previous speeches. The bill as it now stands raises doubts in that regard. Political parties have a duty to protect the personal information of their donors and members. As for enforcement and sanctions, the bill gives more power to the federal Commissioner of Canada Elections and increases the administrative monetary penalties. Finally, the bill also seeks to change the names of some ridings at the request of members, a move that, in our case, was approved by the communities covered by this bill. As I said, we support the principle of this bill. We applaud the goal of protecting electoral integrity and combatting interference and corruption. We do, however, disagree with one of the measures in the bill, which we expressed in committee. We do not understand why this has not already been amended. We therefore want to work on this some more and propose amendments related to the measure preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. It is a very slippery slope when the government starts limiting citizens’ ability to endorse candidates with a signature. Signing a nomination paper does not mean that individual will vote for that candidate. However, if people are limited to signing only one, it will almost become— Mr. Speaker, people are having conversations right next to me. Perhaps those folks could go into the lobby to do that. I do not think they are listening to my speech, anyway.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25, which amends the Canada Elections Act. We think the intention of the bill is good. We agree in principle and we will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. However, there are some nuances I need to talk about. Of course we agree with the bans regarding foreign influence, election disinformation, election corruption, and those so-called “rewards”, or bribes, the infamous “brownies”. These things urgently need to be regulated. We also agree when it comes to addressing the problems with nomination contests and leadership races. When it comes to political party financing, parties are also prohibited from accepting and using certain donations, namely those from anonymous sources. That is important, and we need to keep that up. Questions were raised about that earlier in the discussions on previous speeches. The bill as it now stands raises doubts in that regard. Political parties have a duty to protect the personal information of their donors and members. As for enforcement and sanctions, the bill gives more power to the federal Commissioner of Canada Elections and increases the administrative monetary penalties. Finally, the bill also seeks to change the names of some ridings at the request of members, a move that, in our case, was approved by the communities covered by this bill. As I said, we support the principle of this bill. We applaud the goal of protecting electoral integrity and combatting interference and corruption. We do, however, disagree with one of the measures in the bill, which we expressed in committee. We do not understand why this has not already been amended. We therefore want to work on this some more and propose amendments related to the measure preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. It is a very slippery slope when the government starts limiting citizens’ ability to endorse candidates with a signature. Signing a nomination paper does not mean that individual will vote for that candidate. However, if people are limited to signing only one, it will almost become— Mr. Speaker, people are having conversations right next to me. Perhaps those folks could go into the lobby to do that. I do not think they are listening to my speech, anyway.
“I support most of this bill, but I want changes. Voters should still be allowed to sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. Signing a paper does not mean you have to vote for that person, and people should not be forced to reveal their choice before the campaign even happens. We also need to change how parties are funded. We should follow Quebec, lower donation limits to stop rich people from buying influence, and give public money to parties based on their votes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a mild case of attention deficit. Nearby noises bother me. I will pick up where I left off. I was outlining the serious doubts that we raised over the prospect of preventing constituents from signing more than one nomination paper. This is an important issue. Signing a nomination paper does not oblige constituents to vote for the candidate in question. They are free to watch the election campaign unfold and possibly change their mind along the way. Otherwise, what purpose would election campaigns serve? If we tell constituents that they cannot sign more than one nomination paper, it amounts to telling them that they have to make their choice at the start of the campaign, which would make election campaigns rather pointless. People would be unable to sign a nomination paper for the person they want to vote for because someone else got to them first. The problem with that is obvious. The other problem is that the vote will be made public. Most people are comfortable with that. I think most people here could guess who I voted for in the last election and in every election of my life. However, some people do not want to reveal who they voted for, and that is fine, because it is all voters’ prerogative to keep their vote secret. If a person can sign only one nomination paper, they might as well announce publicly which candidate they will be voting for. We understand how complex this issue is. I myself have gladly signed the nomination papers of certain opponents, because it is important to have an election campaign with diverse candidates and to foster democratic debate. We believe this provision should be removed from the bill. We believe the other measures will be enough to control the very high number of candidates seen in the last election. I just said that I have signed ballots for certain political opponents, but I will never sign ballots for 48 candidates who are simply there to bog down the electoral system. There are different ways to express disagreement. Fundamentally, I agree with the cause these people are defending. However, I think they are taking the wrong approach. They are disrupting the entire electoral system. Through their actions, they are discouraging citizens from exercising their right to vote. In large federal ridings, a list can sometimes include as many as 72 candidates, and voters often have to search through them. Take Berthier—Maskinongé, for example, with its 108,000 voters and 37 municipalities. As qualified and important as I believe myself to be, I am well aware that many people in my riding vote primarily for the party. They need to be able to find that choice on the ballot. We therefore agree that this needs to be addressed. Compromises were found during the recent by-elections, particularly in Terrebonne, where candidates affiliated with recognized parties were placed on the first page. However, requiring voters to write down the name of the candidate increases the degree of difficulty, the duration of the vote, the risk of error and the risk of a challenge. There was no recount this time because there was a clear majority, but in the event of a judicial recount, it is easy to imagine how that could be challenged by lawyers for the other party that is seeking to overturn a vote, particularly if a candidate has a hyphenated last name and the voter only wrote part of the name. This can cause major problems and delays that must be avoided. That said, we agree with most of the measures proposed in the bill. I hope the government will reconsider preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper, but there is something else we take issue with: Why not take this opportunity to review the issue of political party financing? I will again use Quebec as an example. I know I am always going on about this, but this is another fine example of how Quebec is ahead of Canada. Quebec reformed its electoral law several years ago. Public funding is allocated based on the number of votes obtained, and donors are limited to a donation of $100 per year and $200 in an election year. That limits influence. Let us not forget that, under the previous prime minister’s government, Chinese-Canadian businessmen planning to open a bank in Canada attended receptions to gain access to the Prime Minister and donated over $1,700. That is a lot of money. There are not many ordinary citizens who can afford to donate $1,700 to a political party. It is time we sorted this out. These amounts and this way of doing things open the door to the possibility of electoral manipulation. It is never a good thing when money buys access to ministers, so we need to democratize the system. Public funding of political parties could also prevent some parties from engaging in populism. The parliamentary secretary seems to be listening carefully to my remarks and I am pleased about that. I am sure that he will appreciate what I am saying about some of the more populist parties that post the same slogans or videos repeating the same lines on their social media to try to raise a lot of money. We could perhaps mitigate that by allocating a portion of public funding to the parties. That is something we could work on. Of course, I hope the government will work collaboratively and that the talk we are hearing will be followed by more practical measures than the ones in yesterday’s motion. I mentioned this briefly earlier, but it is also important that we have access to the names and addresses of people who make donations to political parties. Part of the bill raises doubts in that regard, and we have serious concerns about that. Of course, if we allow anonymous donations, it would only further encourage fraud, manipulation and corruption. We want to avoid that. We also want to avoid foreign interference and the use of AI to send messages. We saw how a lot of messages were sent out to voters to direct them to the wrong polling stations. That is very serious and I hope that significant penalties will be imposed. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have a mild case of attention deficit. Nearby noises bother me. I will pick up where I left off. I was outlining the serious doubts that we raised over the prospect of preventing constituents from signing more than one nomination paper. This is an important issue. Signing a nomination paper does not oblige constituents to vote for the candidate in question. They are free to watch the election campaign unfold and possibly change their mind along the way. Otherwise, what purpose would election campaigns serve? If we tell constituents that they cannot sign more than one nomination paper, it amounts to telling them that they have to make their choice at the start of the campaign, which would make election campaigns rather pointless. People would be unable to sign a nomination paper for the person they want to vote for because someone else got to them first. The problem with that is obvious. The other problem is that the vote will be made public. Most people are comfortable with that. I think most people here could guess who I voted for in the last election and in every election of my life. However, some people do not want to reveal who they voted for, and that is fine, because it is all voters’ prerogative to keep their vote secret. If a person can sign only one nomination paper, they might as well announce publicly which candidate they will be voting for. We understand how complex this issue is. I myself have gladly signed the nomination papers of certain opponents, because it is important to have an election campaign with diverse candidates and to foster democratic debate. We believe this provision should be removed from the bill. We believe the other measures will be enough to control the very high number of candidates seen in the last election. I just said that I have signed ballots for certain political opponents, but I will never sign ballots for 48 candidates who are simply there to bog down the electoral system. There are different ways to express disagreement. Fundamentally, I agree with the cause these people are defending. However, I think they are taking the wrong approach. They are disrupting the entire electoral system. Through their actions, they are discouraging citizens from exercising their right to vote. In large federal ridings, a list can sometimes include as many as 72 candidates, and voters often have to search through them. Take Berthier—Maskinongé, for example, with its 108,000 voters and 37 municipalities. As qualified and important as I believe myself to be, I am well aware that many people in my riding vote primarily for the party. They need to be able to find that choice on the ballot. We therefore agree that this needs to be addressed. Compromises were found during the recent by-elections, particularly in Terrebonne, where candidates affiliated with recognized parties were placed on the first page. However, requiring voters to write down the name of the candidate increases the degree of difficulty, the duration of the vote, the risk of error and the risk of a challenge. There was no recount this time because there was a clear majority, but in the event of a judicial recount, it is easy to imagine how that could be challenged by lawyers for the other party that is seeking to overturn a vote, particularly if a candidate has a hyphenated last name and the voter only wrote part of the name. This can cause major problems and delays that must be avoided. That said, we agree with most of the measures proposed in the bill. I hope the government will reconsider preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper, but there is something else we take issue with: Why not take this opportunity to review the issue of political party financing? I will again use Quebec as an example. I know I am always going on about this, but this is another fine example of how Quebec is ahead of Canada. Quebec reformed its electoral law several years ago. Public funding is allocated based on the number of votes obtained, and donors are limited to a donation of $100 per year and $200 in an election year. That limits influence. Let us not forget that, under the previous prime minister’s government, Chinese-Canadian businessmen planning to open a bank in Canada attended receptions to gain access to the Prime Minister and donated over $1,700. That is a lot of money. There are not many ordinary citizens who can afford to donate $1,700 to a political party. It is time we sorted this out. These amounts and this way of doing things open the door to the possibility of electoral manipulation. It is never a good thing when money buys access to ministers, so we need to democratize the system. Public funding of political parties could also prevent some parties from engaging in populism. The parliamentary secretary seems to be listening carefully to my remarks and I am pleased about that. I am sure that he will appreciate what I am saying about some of the more populist parties that post the same slogans or videos repeating the same lines on their social media to try to raise a lot of money. We could perhaps mitigate that by allocating a portion of public funding to the parties. That is something we could work on. Of course, I hope the government will work collaboratively and that the talk we are hearing will be followed by more practical measures than the ones in yesterday’s motion. I mentioned this briefly earlier, but it is also important that we have access to the names and addresses of people who make donations to political parties. Part of the bill raises doubts in that regard, and we have serious concerns about that. Of course, if we allow anonymous donations, it would only further encourage fraud, manipulation and corruption. We want to avoid that. We also want to avoid foreign interference and the use of AI to send messages. We saw how a lot of messages were sent out to voters to direct them to the wrong polling stations. That is very serious and I hope that significant penalties will be imposed. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.
“I agree that an agent should not represent more than one candidate. But I do not agree with stopping voters from signing nomination papers for more than one person. Signing a paper should not reveal who someone plans to vote for, because votes are supposed to be secret.”
“Mr. Speaker, of course we will be there in committee to present our proposals, including on political party financing. That is essential. To answer my colleague’s second question, we support half of these measures. We believe that prohibiting an official agent from representing more than one candidate will solve most of the problem. However, we are very concerned, and we do not agree with preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. This raises issues concerning the secrecy of the vote, among other things. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary heard me say this earlier, but the fact that I can sign as many nomination papers as I want has in the past allowed me to sign the nomination papers of my own political opponents. I did so in good faith for the sake of a healthy political debate and campaign. However, if a voter can sign only one nomination paper, that means the individual signing the paper will be voting for that candidate. Even if that is not the case, it will prevent people from signing the nomination paper of the candidate for whom they intend to vote, and that makes the vote partially public. This raises issues that need to be addressed.”
Mr. Speaker, of course we will be there in committee to present our proposals, including on political party financing. That is essential. To answer my colleague’s second question, we support half of these measures. We believe that prohibiting an official agent from representing more than one candidate will solve most of the problem. However, we are very concerned, and we do not agree with preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. This raises issues concerning the secrecy of the vote, among other things. I do not know if the parliamentary secretary heard me say this earlier, but the fact that I can sign as many nomination papers as I want has in the past allowed me to sign the nomination papers of my own political opponents. I did so in good faith for the sake of a healthy political debate and campaign. However, if a voter can sign only one nomination paper, that means the individual signing the paper will be voting for that candidate. Even if that is not the case, it will prevent people from signing the nomination paper of the candidate for whom they intend to vote, and that makes the vote partially public. This raises issues that need to be addressed.
“People should be allowed to sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. Signing a paper is not a vote, and voters must be free to change their minds during an election.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that my colleague asks me a question that I appreciate, so it has been a good week. The issue has a lot to do with ballot secrecy. I had started to explain it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. Ballot secrecy is a privilege of citizenship. As long as citizens can sign as many nomination papers as they want, signing does not mean they are voting for that person. However, if we get to the point where citizens can only sign one nomination paper, the message would be that they are going to vote for that person. It also implies that there is some sort of commitment and that citizens cannot change their mind during an election campaign. However, an election campaign is precisely when people change their minds. We are usually pretty good at changing people’s minds, so we would not want that to change. We think that the other measures, such as having one official agent per candidate, could do the job. We agree on the basic objective.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that my colleague asks me a question that I appreciate, so it has been a good week. The issue has a lot to do with ballot secrecy. I had started to explain it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. Ballot secrecy is a privilege of citizenship. As long as citizens can sign as many nomination papers as they want, signing does not mean they are voting for that person. However, if we get to the point where citizens can only sign one nomination paper, the message would be that they are going to vote for that person. It also implies that there is some sort of commitment and that citizens cannot change their mind during an election campaign. However, an election campaign is precisely when people change their minds. We are usually pretty good at changing people’s minds, so we would not want that to change. We think that the other measures, such as having one official agent per candidate, could do the job. We agree on the basic objective.
“I want my colleague to explain why we should bring back public funding for political parties and limit donations. How does that protect democracy and stop corruption?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about the importance of reinstating public funding for political parties and limiting the scope for donations. Why is that important for democracy and for the fight against corruption and conflicts of interest?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about the importance of reinstating public funding for political parties and limiting the scope for donations. Why is that important for democracy and for the fight against corruption and conflicts of interest?
“We need to lower the amount of money people are allowed to donate to political parties. Right now, people who donate $1,700 get a big tax refund paid with public money. Only powerful people can give that much, and that is a problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, getting a portion of public funding is essential. I was told earlier that there was some uncertainty as to whether there was an agreement on this. I can confirm that there is public funding, because when someone donates $1,700, they receive a substantial tax refund. Public money is going into this. What we are suggesting is simply changing the formula, the way it is done, to prevent anyone from donating as much as $1,700. We believe that only influential people can do this, so that poses a problem. The amount needs to be lowered.”
Mr. Speaker, getting a portion of public funding is essential. I was told earlier that there was some uncertainty as to whether there was an agreement on this. I can confirm that there is public funding, because when someone donates $1,700, they receive a substantial tax refund. Public money is going into this. What we are suggesting is simply changing the formula, the way it is done, to prevent anyone from donating as much as $1,700. We believe that only influential people can do this, so that poses a problem. The amount needs to be lowered.
“I want to bring back public funding for political parties. Right now, donation limits are too high. Only wealthy people can afford them, which can give them special access to ministers. Public funding would let us lower donation limits to around $500 and base party money on how many votes they get.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague concerning the main point, that being our proposal to reinstate public funding for political parties. What we currently see are very high caps on financial contributions to political parties. Obviously, not everyone can afford to contribute so much. Our point is that this opens the door to the appearance of a conflict of interest or privileged access to ministers, for example, when tickets to a cocktail party cost $1,500. Reinstating public funding for political parties would allow us to cap potential political contributions at, let us say, $500. In this way, contributions would not be limited to the fortunate few. It would also make funding a lot more grassroots and more representative of the number of votes cast for each party.”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague concerning the main point, that being our proposal to reinstate public funding for political parties. What we currently see are very high caps on financial contributions to political parties. Obviously, not everyone can afford to contribute so much. Our point is that this opens the door to the appearance of a conflict of interest or privileged access to ministers, for example, when tickets to a cocktail party cost $1,500. Reinstating public funding for political parties would allow us to cap potential political contributions at, let us say, $500. In this way, contributions would not be limited to the fortunate few. It would also make funding a lot more grassroots and more representative of the number of votes cast for each party.
“I want to bring back public funding for political parties and limit personal donations to $500. Public funding gives parties money based on how many votes they get. The current donation limit is too high and makes corruption look possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I would like her opinion. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to reinstate public funding for political parties and to cap donations at $500. With public funding, the government contributes an amount based on the number of votes received by each party. Some people will say that the government should not be subsidizing the parties, yet it is happening already through tax-deductible donations. If we keep the limit at $1,775 and a lot of employees from one company make donations, it could create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. I would like her opinion. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to reinstate public funding for political parties and to cap donations at $500. With public funding, the government contributes an amount based on the number of votes received by each party. Some people will say that the government should not be subsidizing the parties, yet it is happening already through tax-deductible donations. If we keep the limit at $1,775 and a lot of employees from one company make donations, it could create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption.
“This bill might stop the government from sharing the names and addresses of political donors. That could lead to corruption. If the bill does this, will the member oppose it?”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bill would result in the government no longer being required to disclose the names and addresses of political donors. I asked one of my Liberal colleagues about this earlier. He replied that he did not think the bill would have that effect. If that were the case, it would really open the door to conflicts of interest, corruption and so on. If it turns out that the bill really does make it so that the government is no longer required to disclose the names and addresses of donors, would my colleague agree that that is wrong? Would he oppose that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bill would result in the government no longer being required to disclose the names and addresses of political donors. I asked one of my Liberal colleagues about this earlier. He replied that he did not think the bill would have that effect. If that were the case, it would really open the door to conflicts of interest, corruption and so on. If it turns out that the bill really does make it so that the government is no longer required to disclose the names and addresses of donors, would my colleague agree that that is wrong? Would he oppose that?
“This bill says voters can only sign nomination papers for one candidate. I do not support this rule. It hurts secret voting and makes it harder for new parties to run. We do not need it.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed measures in the bill stipulates that voters may not sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. In other words, they may sign only one paper. However, this could have an unintended consequence, because, up until now, signing a candidate’s nomination paper has not necessarily been seen as an endorsement of the candidate, but rather as support for their right to run for office. If we limit this to a single person, it will effectively become an endorsement of the candidate. On the one hand, this raises concerns about ballot secrecy. Voting would no longer be secret. On the other hand, it will somewhat limit emerging parties. Do we really need this measure? We do not think so, and we believe the other measures will be sufficient to address the high number of nomination papers.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed measures in the bill stipulates that voters may not sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. In other words, they may sign only one paper. However, this could have an unintended consequence, because, up until now, signing a candidate’s nomination paper has not necessarily been seen as an endorsement of the candidate, but rather as support for their right to run for office. If we limit this to a single person, it will effectively become an endorsement of the candidate. On the one hand, this raises concerns about ballot secrecy. Voting would no longer be secret. On the other hand, it will somewhat limit emerging parties. Do we really need this measure? We do not think so, and we believe the other measures will be sufficient to address the high number of nomination papers.
