The committee’s hearings on Bill C-25, the foreign influence registry, and civic resilience have revealed a consistent tension between the need for stronger electoral safeguards and concerns about overreach, implementation delays, and loopholes. A recurring theme across meetings is the adequacy of the 10% own-funds threshold for third parties, which allows organizations to use their general revenues for regulated election activities without full disclosure of the source of those funds. Witnesses including Gerald Chipeur, Duff Conacher, and Minister Steven MacKinnon himself described this as a potential loophole for foreign money, while others such as Holly Ann Garnett and Stéphane Perrault defended it as a reasonable balance that avoids charter risks and preserves civil society participation. The government has signalled openness to amendments on this point, but no change has been adopted.

The committee has heard from a wide range of constituencies: Elections Canada officials, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, academics, civil society organizations, and representatives of diaspora communities. There was broad agreement that the information environment is deteriorating, with witnesses such as Taylor Owen and Heidi Tworek documenting how AI-generated content and online harassment are undermining trust and participation. Witnesses from Apathy is Boring, the Samara Centre, and Equitas all advocated for a sustained, arm’s-length Canadian democracy fund to resource civic education and engagement, a proposal that also received support from the Hogue commission and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. However, there was sharp disagreement on the role of content regulation: John Carpay and Josh Dehaas argued that government censorship erodes trust, while others like Philippe Marcoux and Aengus Bridgman called for stronger platform regulation and researcher access.

On the foreign influence registry, the committee heard that implementation of the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act remains incomplete more than two years after royal assent, with the commissioner not yet formally appointed, regulations not finalized, and the IT system not yet operational. Assistant Deputy Minister Sébastien Aubertin-Giguère defended the timeline as consistent with allied countries, but Conservative and Bloc members expressed frustration, and Dr. Charles Burton argued the delay risks making Bill C-25 performative without a functioning registry. The committee also heard from Elections Canada that the 10% threshold and the removal of advance notice for fundraising event locations were deliberate choices to balance transparency with safety, though some witnesses and members continued to press for tighter rules.

Over the course of the hearings, the committee’s focus has shifted from broad principles to specific legislative details. Early meetings on civic resilience canvassed the nature of threats and the need for investment, while later sessions on Bill C-25 moved into clause-by-clause debate, with amendments adopted on riding name changes, fine amounts, and technical clarifications, while more contentious proposals on nomination signatures, ballot box security, and third-party accounts were defeated. The government has consistently emphasized that the bill reflects recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and the Hogue commission, and has expressed openness to further tightening on foreign funding, but has resisted changes it views as charter risks or operational burdens.