Carney Fundraisers and Bill C-25: Less Disclosure Is Not Reform
If the Liberals believe their fundraising is clean, they should want more sunlight — not weaker reporting rules.
The latest red flag is not complicated. Elections Canada's regulated fundraising event registry and the Liberal Party's own event listings show Liberal fundraising machinery still moving while Bill C-25, the government's Strong and Free Elections Act, is now headed for advance Senate study.
On its face, Bill C-25 is sold as an election-integrity bill. It deals with foreign influence, long-ballot protests, nomination paperwork and other technical changes to the Canada Elections Act. Some of that deserves serious, non-partisan review. But buried in the public debate is the part Canadians should watch most closely: fundraiser transparency.
The existing rules came out of the Trudeau-era cash-for-access controversy. In 2018, Liberals passed legislation requiring parties to publicly advertise regulated fundraisers attended by leaders or ministers and to report key details afterward. Those rules were not perfect, but they at least gave voters a paper trail: when powerful people paid to be in a room with powerful politicians, the public could later see basic information about the event.
Now the Carney Liberals are being criticized for moving in the opposite direction. Canadian Press reporting earlier this year described Carney's closed-door fundraisers as a "step back" for ethics in politics, quoting expert concern after the party returned to private-residence events. The same reporting noted that Liberal legislation in 2018 required disclosure for high-priced events involving leaders, ministers or leadership contestants.
No party should get to campaign on clean democracy while quietly reducing what voters can learn about who paid to get access.
The timing matters. Parliament's LEGISinfo page says the Senate voted on May 7, 2026 to authorize advance committee study of Bill C-25, with a report due by June 4. In plain English: this bill is moving, and the fundraiser rules should not slide through as a technical footnote.
There is a fair public-safety argument for not publishing exact private-home addresses in advance. Nobody needs political violence or harassment. But that argument does not justify watering down post-event disclosure beyond what is necessary. Canadians can protect personal safety and still demand meaningful disclosure of the city, the price, the political beneficiary, the prominent attendees, and who paid to attend.
Carney's brand is built on competence, seriousness and grown-up governance. Fine. Then he should meet a grown-up transparency standard. If the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers or senior Liberal figures are raising money from people who want influence over federal policy, voters deserve maximum disclosure after the fact.
Otherwise, Bill C-25 starts to look less like a clean-election bill and more like a convenient clean-up job for political insiders.
Sources: Elections Canada Regulated Fundraising Events Registry; Liberal Party of Canada events listing; Parliament of Canada LEGISinfo: Bill C-25; Bill C-25 text, first reading; Canadian Press / CKPG Today on Carney closed-door fundraisers; Elections Canada political financing guidance.