More Amendments to Canada's Electoral Act Further Discredit Canada's Unrepresentative Democracy
On
March 26, member of the King's Privy Council and Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons Steven MacKinnon announced Bill
C-25, misnamed the Strong and Free Elections Act. Second reading of the bill commenced on April 16.
A central aim of Bill C-25 is to "mitigate unduly long ballots." Bill C-25 includes all the recommendations in the March 24 report of the House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC), aimed at shutting down the Longest Ballot Project, except for one. The government did not agree with putting a message on candidate nomination forms warning people that it is a crime to nominate more than one candidate.
The enforcement of the new long ballot prohibitions criminalize people who participate in gathering nomination signatures for more than one candidate in a riding, along with those who sign the forms. The act of soliciting signatures is captured by provisions against "conspiring" with and/or "counselling any person or entity" to nominate more than one candidate. Administrative monetary penalties will apply, the amount at the discretion of the Commissioner of Elections Canada.
There is no provision targeting candidates. As if the election law was already not incoherent enough, Bill C-25 actually states that a candidate's nomination "is not to be refused on the ground" that an unstated number of their nominators also signed other nomination forms.
Bamboozling Amendments on Political Parties
and Personal Information
Bill C-25 also contains bamboozling amendments to amendments to the election law that received Royal Assent barely two weeks before it was tabled. The amendments and amendments to the amendments all pertain to the gathering and use of personal information by political parties.
Specifically, the House of Commons recently adopted Bill C-4 amendments to the Canada Elections Act which established that no federal or provincial privacy laws are applicable to political parties. The Senate objected to Bill C-4 and attempted to introduce a time-limit on its applicability, with the stated aim of giving the government time to "develop a more robust and comprehensive uniform privacy regime." When the House of Commons rejected the Senate's proposal, Minister MacKinnon promised "additional privacy provisions" would be introduced within this session of parliament. Unless the Liberals have more election law amendments up their sleeves, Bill C-25 contains these promised "additional provisions."
Bill C-25 does nothing to provide Canadians with the right to informed consent when Elections Canada hands over their personal information to political parties to use in ways they know nothing about. Instead, the Canada Elections Act retains the provisions that authorize Elections Canada to hand over to registered political parties the name, address and unique identification number of registered electors, along with information on which of them voted. The information on who voted is handed out both during and after an election. The consent of Canadians is not required so they remain deprived of any say or control over the matter, save removing themselves from the National Register of Electors. For their part, political parties retain the exceptional privilege of being exempt from all privacy laws and the entitlement to draft their own privacy policies.
Instead of addressing the absence of the right to informed consent in the election law, Bill C-25 expands what political parties will have to include in their published privacy policies, all of which are related to the security of their data banks. The policies will have to state that the party provides "physical, organizational and technological safeguards" for personal information; that it will inform affected individuals of security breaches; and that it will ensure that persons or "entities" with which they share electors' personal information have the same level of security that the party has. Privacy officers of political parties will have to attend at least one Elections Canada meeting a year on the topic of personal information protection. Bill C-25 authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to review the party policies; he must be satisfied that they comply with the Canada Elections Act requirements.
Finally, the Liberals are claiming that with Bill C-25 they will enforce cartel party honesty about their use of personal information, with provisions making it a crime for parties to lie to Canadians!!??
Henceforth, once Bill C-25 receives Royal Assent, party privacy policies must "prohibit the party [and all connected individuals and organizations] from providing false or misleading information to individuals about the purposes for which the party collects personal information." The party must also not lie about selling personal information it has, nor about its disclosure of personal information it controls "for the purpose of causing harm." What "causing harm" means is not defined.
Extending "Foreign Interference" Laws to the
Internal Affairs of Political Parties
Other measures in Bill C-25 introduce prohibitions against "undue foreign influence" in candidate nomination and leadership contests which are by right the internal affairs of political parties. There is no apparent objection by the cartel parties who in any case have already integrated themselves into the "national security" apparatus of the state by having officials with national security clearance serving on screening bodies for potential candidate and leadership contestants.
It is already illegal for anyone but a Canadian citizen or permanent resident to make political contributions to a registered political entity: political parties and their electoral district association, candidates, and individuals who participate in a candidate nomination and party leadership nomination. So too there are myriad prohibitions against "undue foreign influence," which is defined as a foreign entity incurring expenses or breaking any law of Canada to influence how people vote. Bill C-25 introduces a whole section entitled "Prohibitions in Relation to Voting at a Nomination Contest or Leadership Contest" basically duplicating the "undue foreign influence" prohibitions that already apply to election campaigns.
The same is done with prohibitions against bribery, intimidation and "attempts to compel" a person to vote for a certain candidate or party in an election. The addition of these laws specifically targeting the internal affairs of political parties raises the question of what kind of political parties need the state to set and enforce their rules and prohibit such corrupt activities in their ranks. It remains to be seen whether these new provisions will be detected by the secret police or by cartel party "oppo-research" operatives sussing out competitor wrongdoings.
These election laws were recommended by the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference which suggested their absence represented a "loophole." The inquiry examined allegations that nomination races and leadership contests in the lead-up to the 2019 and 2021 federal elections were the target of foreign interference. All of these were based on unsubstantiated stories from spy agencies and their secret informants, such as tales about money from the Communist Party of China being funnelled into various election campaign chests without any evidence. To date, not one verified case has been presented to Canadians and whatever the spies and informants told the "Public" Inquiry remain secrets of state.
The law makes it clear that what constitutes "undue foreign influence" definitely does not include political parties hiring supranational private corporations which specialize in running election campaigns. The law prohibits foreign corporations from intervening in elections if they do not operate in Canada. It also prohibits activities of any foreign corporation with operations in Canada if one of its primary activities consists of "doing anything to influence" voting. It does not prohibit them from working for a political party.
Who
decides what constitutes "undue" foreign influence? Not any old foreign
influence, but "undue" foreign influence. The Commissioner of Canada
Elections says many Canadians file complaints about public statements
at elections because they think they are illegal, such as foreign
personalities or governments or media outlets
endorsing
a contestant in an election, as Barack Obama did with Justin Trudeau.
The Canada Elections Act
says that merely expressing an opinion about one's desired outcome for
an election, issuing a statement encouraging people to vote in a
certain way, even if expenses are incurred by the foreign
entity, does not violate the law.
The experience of Canadians is that "undue" foreign influence, or allegations of it, is determined by NATO-aligned and inspired police agencies, including the Five Eyes alliance, when they pronounce certain countries -- they define as "hostile states" -- are attempting to sway elections. This applies even when the impugned activities are open and transparent.
For instance, Chinese media outlets reported on the 2019 Canadian election campaign by quoting from newspapers such as the Canadian Hill Times about the policies of various parties on China. This included those of the Conservative Party, which the Hill Times described as hostile to China. It was declared that social-media accounts re-posting the articles constituted Chinese state interference in Canadian elections.
In addition to extending prohibitions against foreign influence to candidate and leadership nomination races, regulations on "third parties" are expanded to require an increasing amount of detail about the source of their funds. In certain cases, third parties that fund themselves through contributions will have to publish the names and addresses of anyone who contributes more than $200 to show that their funds are not coming from foreign sources. The increasingly complex "third party" rules will make it more and more difficult for any but the largest organizations to intervene in elections due to fear of inadvertently breaking the law or lack of resources to comply with all the required paperwork and accounting.
Meanwhile talk about use of foreign funds completely obscures how funds for campaigns are raised in a way that is not at all democratic because the demos, the people, are left out of the equation. In terms of how the funds are used, including the generous reimbursement of election campaign spending, this too is based on marginalizing the people, violating the right to an informed vote and reducing the people to voting cattle.
Bill C-25 as Part of a Suite of Measures for Increased
Police Monitoring of Elections
Bill C-25 also strengthens the powers of the Commissioner of Canada Elections who is responsible for enforcement of the Canada Elections Act to conduct investigations and secure information. This includes the Commissioner being authorized to enter into agreements for information sharing with pretty well any government department and police and spy agencies such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and the Communications Security Establishment.
MacKinnon released Bill C-25 as one of a trio of initiatives. The second measure he announced involves expanding the monitoring of elections and political discourse by secret political police, also in the name of countering "foreign interference." The "Rapid Response Mechanism" set up in 2018 by the leaders of the G7 countries -- U.S., Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan -- will receive $31.5 million over the next five years to expand its work. It is an agency housed in Global Affairs and tasked with "detecting foreign information activities that may impact Canada's interests." This agency works in tandem with NATO-aligned "partners to detect foreign information manipulation, interference and transnational repression aimed at democracies." Canadians are to believe this does not constitute foreign interference.
The
third measure is an update to the "Cabinet Directive to the Critical
Election Incident Public Protocol." What a name! This is a body created
in 2019 also related to allegations of foreign interference. It is
comprised of the Clerk of the Privy Council, the National Security and
Intelligence
Advisor to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Minister of Justice and
Deputy Attorney General (the position currently occupied by Marie-Josée Hogue, former
Commissioner of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference), the
Deputy Minister of Public Safety and the Deputy Minister of Foreign
Affairs. They are tasked with
deciding when and how Canadians should be informed during general
elections about "incidents that threaten Canada's ability to have a
free and fair election." MacKinnon announced that an individual
allegedly not connected to the government, decided upon by the cartel
parties, will be added to the
group. Of course, such an individual said not to be connected to the
government is definitely connected to the state. They must nonetheless
receive security clearance and in all likelihood pledge to keep
whatever information comes their way as a "secret of state" which
cannot be revealed to
Canadians.
The fact that these amendments to the Canada Elections Act are proposed and voted on by cartel parties whose positions of power and privilege are defended by them is an egregious conflict of interest and history will condemn them for it. The fact that the election law changes are accompanied by measures to enhance national and supranational policing of elections is equally condemnable. Absolutely none of it has to do with providing Canadians with ways to make sure they and their claims on society are represented in government. It is cynical indeed.
This article was published in
Volume 56 Number 3 - March-April, 2026
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/TML2026/Articles/M56034.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca