Strong and Free Elections Act

Bill C-25, Strong and Free Elections Act · Third 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.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

29 statements

Mario Simard, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“This bill should have been a chance to fix our political financing rules. The current system is not fair to people who want to take part in our democracy. I want my colleague to speak more about this.”
Official Hansard

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, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“We should bring back public funding for political parties. Right now, donation limits are too high for most people. Large donations also risk giving rich people too much influence over politicians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“Public funding for political parties is important. Quebec uses it, but Canada stopped. I want the member to explain what Canada can learn from Quebec.”
Official Hansard

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, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“Quebec is often ahead of Canada, like with child care. I want the government to create a committee to study political party funding and electoral reform. We should talk about making our voting system more representative.”
Official Hansard

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, Jonquière

Bloc Québécois
“When officials draw riding borders, they should keep towns with shared interests together instead of just looking at population numbers. In my area, distinct communities were grouped together even though they have little in common. I want my colleague to speak more about this.”
Official Hansard

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, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“Canada needs to rethink how it draws voting boundaries in Quebec. My own riding now includes very different areas that face completely different challenges, which makes it harder to represent everyone well. I hope Quebec becomes an independent country before the next boundary review.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 24 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“Changing riding boundaries can hurt local communities. I also want us to talk about changing our voting system to be more proportional while still protecting representation for our regions. The government promised to do this before and broke that promise. I want to know what my colleague suggests we do.”
Official Hansard

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, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“We need proportional representation. Right now, some people do not bother to vote because one party always wins in their area. A proportional voting system would make sure everyone's vote counts and is represented in Parliament.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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, Mississauga—Erin Mills

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill to protect our elections. It stops foreign interference, bans fake online videos, and stops people from using untraceable money like cryptocurrency to buy influence. It also shortens overcrowded ballots, protects candidates' private information, and gives stronger punishments to people who break election laws.”
Official Hansard

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.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 134

  1. Government Orders Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26 11 statements
  2. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Telecommunications 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Access to Information 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions The Economy 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions National Defence 3 statements
  23. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  24. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  25. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  26. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 5 statements
  27. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 34 statements
  28. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  29. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  30. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 2 statements
  31. Oral Questions Firearms 2 statements
  32. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  33. Oral Questions Government Appointments 2 statements
  34. Private Members' Business National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act 8 statements
  35. Government Orders Strong and Free Elections Act 29 statements
  36. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 7 statements
  37. Government Orders Government Orders 11 statements
  38. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  39. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  40. Government Orders Government Orders 19 statements