House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 104
CONTENTS
Thursday, April 16, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 104
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, April 16, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from Canadians concerned about the closure of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current Research and Development Centre.
The petitioners note that this was the only dedicated organic research initiative within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It supported critical long-term work on soil health, crop rotation, pest management and scientific best practices writ large. They warn that its closure risks weakening Canada's agricultural research capacity and long-term competitiveness.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to stop its attack on agricultural science, reinstate the program and strengthen public research in organic and regenerative agriculture, which is an economic boost to the country of Canada and small businesses in every province and territory.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise and present a petition on behalf of my constituents.
I rise for the 11th time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada.
The petitioners are deeply concerned by what they read in the local papers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP are searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants. Our once safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail.
The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities.
I fully support the good people of Dauphin.
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I will present briefly.
The first petition is one that I continue to receive from constituents and Canadians right across the country with respect to Bill C-9. We know the bill has passed over to the other side, and hopefully it is being properly vetted. I believe the Senate will do the work that is required, which was perhaps not done properly in the House. It is with respect to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, which are fundamental rights that must be preserved in our country. The goal is to have the bill properly vetted by the Senate so that, when it comes back to the House, it no longer exists.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition, which draws the attention of the House to the fact that, in the current federal criminal law, a preborn child is not recognized as a victim in violent crimes. Today, when a pregnant woman in Canada is assaulted or killed, we offer no legal protection for the preborn child. Therefore, no charge can be laid specifically for the death of the child. The death or injury of a preborn child is a violation of a woman's right to protect and give life to her child.
The Kaake family of Windsor, Ontario, continues to grieve the loss of Cassandra and her preborn daughter, Molly. Cassandra was 31 weeks pregnant with Molly when they were brutally murdered in December 2014.
The petitioners are calling upon the House to pass legislation that would recognize preborn children as separate victims when they are injured or killed during the commission of an offence against their mothers, allowing two charges to be laid against the offender instead of one. We need to value choice.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. Today I am tabling a petition on behalf of residents of Abbotsford—South Langley who are deeply concerned with the proposed changes to the salmon allocation policy that would decimate regular recreational fishing opportunities for coho and chinook salmon in British Columbia.
For generations, salmon has been managed as a common property resource held in trust by the government for the benefit of all Canadians. Altering this principle risks transforming a shared public resource into an exclusive privilege, which would limit access and erode public confidence in fishery management.
The petitioners call on the Minister of Fisheries to maintain the current salmon allocation policy while continuing to respect and uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition today on behalf of members of the Barrie Persian Association in my riding, as well as members of the Persian community across Simcoe county, who are deeply concerned about the ongoing systemic human rights violations being committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to intensify diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime, support international accountability efforts, amplify voices calling for a free and democratic Iran and take concrete measures to ensure that perpetrators of human rights violations are held accountable.
I am honoured to table this petition on their behalf, and I thank the members of the Persian community, in my riding and across Canada, for their courage and continued advocacy on this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions.
First is a group of petitions that come from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the government's assault on the use of cash in private transactions. Hundreds of business owners and consumers have signed these petitions. They believe that Canadians who follow the law should not have their freedoms impinged by government, and I agree with them.
Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting today is signed by over 46,000 people. It is one of the largest petitions I have seen in this place.
The petitioners call on the government to take a clear stand, one with moral clarity, for the millions of people who are fighting in Iran for their freedoms, their future and their leadership.
The petitioners note that the roar of the lion and the shining sun will prevail and that the government should not side with those who are trying to extinguish their freedoms. I would like to thank everybody who signed this petition and look forward to the government's response.
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of my constituents from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission.
The first one regards Bill C-218. The petitioners state that Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support. They state that mental illness is complex and includes suicidal thoughts as a symptom. The lives of Canadians with mental illness will be at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying on the basis of mental illness alone, especially when treatment and support are not readily available.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is in regard to Bill C-9.
The petitioners state they are concerned that the Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The petitioners state that the government has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community, and that freedom of expression and religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.
Mr. Speaker, the last petition regards post office closures, the axing of long-treasured postal services, particularly for those in remote and Indigenous communities, and the impact upon seniors. The petitioners are calling on the government to revisit its cutbacks on these important services.
Nicotine Replacement Therapies
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of small business owners, including convenience store owners, to remove restrictions on the sale of nicotine pouches. Members of Parliament across all political parties love nicotine pouches. They use them every day, but they can only buy them at Shoppers Drug Mart. Why is Shoppers Drug Mart getting an exclusive monopoly for the sale of nicotine pouches?
The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to remove the restriction of the sale of nicotine pouches only to pharmacies, and allow convenience stores to sell them once again.
Mr. Speaker, as pre-arranged through the desk for virtual petition presentation, I am presenting e-petition—
Questions on the Order Paper
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
[Translation]
Management of Private Members' Business and Royal Recommendation
I would like to make a statement regarding the management of Private Members' Business.
As members know, the Standing Orders of the House and the Constitution require that any bill that would confer the authority to spend public funds must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
For any private member's bill that requires a royal recommendation, the Speaker will only put the question at third reading if the bill has received the necessary royal recommendation.
[English]
Therefore, following each replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair reviews the items added so that the House can be alerted to bills that, at first glance, appear to infringe on the financial prerogative of the Crown.
The order of precedence having been replenished on Thursday, March 19, I wish to inform the House that there is a bill which preoccupies the Chair. That bill is Bill C-261, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, amount of full pension, standing the name of the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.
[Translation]
The Chair is of the view that this bill may require a royal recommendation. Members are therefore invited to make arguments regarding this possibility at the earliest opportunity.
I thank all members for their attention.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Strong and Free Elections Act
moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Bill C-25 introduces amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would bolster the strength and resilience of Canada's electoral system. As we all know, one of the cornerstones of our democracy is our electoral system, and at the foundation of that system is the Canada Elections Act. Canada's democracy is one of the most stable and strongest in the world, but it would be unwise to take this for granted. We must always be on guard for threats that could call into question the validity of our elections.
As we all know, the world in 2026 is much different from just a few years ago. The world has changed, and we, as guardians of Canada's democratic system, must change with it. The Canada Elections Act is already recognized worldwide for its robust administrative procedures, strong political financing regime and strict spending limits, but we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to growing threats to elections that attempt to undermine confidence and erode trust in our democratic electoral processes. Malicious actors can seek to disrupt our democratic processes and elections from anywhere in the world at any time.
Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections remain secure. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from ongoing threats wherever they arise.
[Translation]
That is why, in accordance with the long-standing tradition of proposing ongoing improvements to the Canada Elections Act, our government has proposed priority amendments to deal with these threats.
[English]
I want to take a moment to salute other parties in this House. I think the process that has led to the introduction of this bill has been a model. I am grateful for the input and look forward to the participation in the debate of my colleagues from all parties in the House. In fact, that reflects our shared responsibility, all 343 of us in this chamber, to protect, safeguard and cherish our democracy. This is perhaps our most solemn and important role.
[Translation]
It is essential that we build upon the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on recommendations from the public inquiry into foreign interference, the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections. Bill C-25 will further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through several new measures.
Allow me to give a few examples. First, the bill will protect electors from unlawful attempts to influence their vote, not only once an election is called, but at all times. Second, the amendments will protect nomination and leadership contests from threats, including undue foreign influence, bribery and intimidation. Third, we are closing potential channels for foreign funding in electoral processes. Fourth, the bill will ban sophisticated deepfakes of electoral actors and officials that intend to mislead Canadians. Fifth, the amendments will mitigate long ballots, which challenge the administration and accessibility of federal elections for voters, candidates and election workers. Sixth, we are adding new privacy policy requirements for all federal political parties, including new disclosure requirements in the event of a data breach. Seventh, Bill C-25 will strengthen the commissioner of Canada elections' enforcement mandate by providing new investigative tools and increasing administrative monetary penalties for violations of the act.
I hope my colleagues will allow me to explain these measures in greater detail. As I mentioned at the outset, election interference can occur at any time, not just during election periods. Bill C‑25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, the act will expand the prohibition on undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications falsely purporting to be issued by a certain person, and broadcasting outside Canada with intent to unduly influence voters at any time, not just during the election period. This protection will now also apply to nomination contests in our ridings and to leadership contests.
[English]
In addition, Bill C-25 would extend the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that malicious actors operating outside of Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for breaking the law. For example, someone outside of Canada impersonating a candidate, publishing misleading information purporting to be from a candidate, lying about the rules of our elections or hacking into an electoral computer system to disrupt our elections could be prosecuted even if they do not reside in Canada.
Bill C-25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and dark money from entering into our democratic system. These include banning the use of crypto asset contributions, money orders and prepaid instruments such as prepaid credit cards or store gift cards for all activities by political actors and for regulated activities by third parties.
Importantly, under Bill C-25, third parties would only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. This means third parties could not use funds received from other third parties, such as corporations or businesses, for regulated activities. However, we understand that not all third parties receive contributions, and some may want to use their own revenue for regulated expenses. In those instances, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual revenue would be able to use their own revenues to pay for regulated activities. These amendments would enhance transparency into the source of funds and mitigate the risk of foreign or untraced money entering our elections.
The next element I would like to highlight is how Bill C-25 would tackle the challenge of disinformation. We have all seen it. We have all lived it. Disinformation is a key tactic that aims to fuel discord and erode public trust in our democratic processes. Disinformation seeks to manipulate voters through intentional falsehoods, often spread online. The Chief Electoral Officer, in recent years, called disinformation about the electoral process the “most important” threat to Elections Canada's mandate, and security agencies have noted that disinformation is a persistent threat to election integrity.
Moreover, the final report from the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions states that, “If we do not find ways of addressing it, misinformation and disinformation have the ability to distort our discourse, change our views, and shape our society...it is no exaggeration to say that at this juncture, information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy.”
[Translation]
The amendments proposed in Bill C‑25 will strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. Specifically, the bill prohibits knowingly spreading false information about election activities or the voting process with the intent to disrupt the conduct of an election or affect its results, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy.
This prohibition includes knowingly producing or publishing false or misleading information with the aim of disrupting the conduct of an election or its results. That includes information about who is eligible to vote in an election; the voter registration process; when, where and how to vote; who to vote for; the procedure for becoming a candidate; how votes are validated or counted; and the results of an election.
Another vector for disinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 also addresses. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries certain risks. For example, AI-generated content is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI-generated content such as deepfakes can pose a significant threat. Today, with a computer and a few keystrokes, malicious actors can generate highly realistic, yet fake, video, audio and text content.
To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 makes amendments to the prohibition on impersonation for the purpose of capturing video footage and creating manipulated audio and video content, such as deepfakes, and extends its application to nomination and leadership contestants, who are also vulnerable to such threats.
Bill C-25 also broadens the scope of the prohibition on interfering with a computer system or database in order to, for example, launch a denial-of-service attack to influence the results of an election. The prohibition now includes the act of disrupting the conduct of an election.
That is one of the many examples that show just how essential Bill C-25 is to ensuring that our electoral system can respond appropriately to contemporary threats.
[English]
Another example of this is the way the bill would address the challenges posed by unduly long ballots. When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see the names of candidates on the ballot who have a legitimate desire to represent their constituents if elected. This is foundational to our system of government. However, in ridings targeted by those who seek to create unduly long ballots, this is not the case. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of individuals who have no desire or intention of ever representing the interests of constituents.
Not only do these long ballots create significant accessibility issues for electors and election workers, especially those with disabilities, but they can also delay the vote count. This is why we paid close attention to the study on unduly long ballots by my colleagues from all sides on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and took note of what the witnesses had to say. I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the committee for their excellent work in this regard.
I am happy to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 aligns with all of the legislative recommendations from the committee. This includes the following important measures. First, individuals who seek to become candidates would require 100 unique supporting signatures from electors in their riding. Second, a candidate's official agent could only represent one candidate per election in an electoral district. Third, false information in nomination papers would be prohibited.
At a time when security is increasingly a concern in our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new measures to protect people. For example, the home addresses of returning officers would no longer be made public, candidates would be granted greater reimbursement for personal security expenses, and the rules for regulated fundraising events would be changed. We are seeing people's addresses published online, and harassing behaviour is occurring that limits the rights of people to participate in the democratic process. This is a security concern that must be addressed. In the case of a regulated fundraising event, information about the event would be publicly released, as it must, after it has occurred, including the names of participants and the municipality and province in which the event took place.
[Translation]
The next aspect of Bill C-25 that I would like to discuss concerns the stringent new requirements it imposes on federal political parties regarding the protection of personal information. These requirements are based on part 4 of Bill C-4, which received royal assent on March 12 and which clarified the exclusive regime governing federal political parties' dealings with personal information under the Canada Elections Act. It also made non-compliance with the party's policies subject to the act's administrative monetary penalty system. That means that a federal political party, or any person acting on the party's behalf, could face a monetary penalty if they do not comply with their own policy, depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the commissioner of Canada elections. It is important to note that Bill C-25 proposes increasing the maximum amount of the administrative monetary penalties for both individuals and entities.
Now I would like to explain some of the new policy requirements imposed on federal political parties as a condition for registration.
First, to ensure greater transparency and accessibility, each party must publish its privacy policy, written in plain language in English and French. Furthermore, to make it easy for Canadians to understand, the policy must use examples to explain how the party collects and uses Canadians' personal information.
Second, federal political parties must also include additional measures to safeguard personal information. Personal information must be protected through physical, organizational and technological security safeguards, such as locked filing cabinets and secure areas, document encryption and password protection, and a strict need-to-know rule for sharing personal information, based on how sensitive the information is.
Third, each federal political party's policy must require appropriate steps to be taken in the event of a data breach, including the loss of, unauthorized access to or unauthorized disclosure of personal information. While we would hope that this never happens, an individual whose personal information has been lost, accessed or disclosed must be notified if the breach creates a real risk of significant harm.
Fourth, privacy policies will also require parties to ensure that any third party receiving personal information from a federal political party, such as a supplier or contractor, has equivalent safeguards in place.
To ensure accountability, since the passage of Bill C‑4, each party must have a designated privacy officer responsible for conducting an annual review of the party's compliance with its policy. The Chief Electoral Officer must hold an annual meeting on the protection of personal information by federal political parties, and the privacy officer or a representative must attend. A party's policy must also cover relevant training provided to the party and those acting on its behalf.
[English]
I am going to conclude, having a missed a couple of other important measures in the bill, by just summing up in this way.
This is an important moment. It is a moment when all members of the chamber get to express themselves about our democracy. We have heard from the foreign interference commission inquiry, the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Elections Canada , and now it is up to Parliament to decide whether these measures are meeting the moment in terms of protecting our democracy.
I would observe only that much different debates are going on in democratic institutions in other places, and I am particularly grateful that here in Canada we are working to have strong, free and open elections in this country, where everyone is welcome to participate and may participate in our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome many of the measures contained in the bill. One measure I welcome is the closing of certain loopholes with respect to foreign funding through registered third parties by requiring third parties to set up separate bank accounts so that only funds donated from individual Canadians and permanent residents could be used for regulated activity. That being said, there is an exception that would allow third parties to use their revenues, their existing funds, if contributions are 10% or less on an annual basis the year before the pre-writ period.
Under any circumstances, could foreign funds be treated as being melded with the general funds or general revenues of the third party entity, thus creating a new loophole while seeking to close other loopholes?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member first of all for his very constructive suggestions as we have prepared for the introduction and the debate on the bill, and I want to acknowledge the very real concern about foreign, or in any other way inappropriate, implication or involvement in our electoral processes.
The goal is, I think, exactly as the member expresses, such that we would eliminate any kind of side road or back road into advocacy from foreign or dark money or from any other source that does not comprise ordinary Canadians, individuals, giving money to an organization to engage in regulated activities under the act. The 10% threshold of which the member speaks is a very low threshold, so I suppose in extreme cases that 10% might see an extremely small, maybe even infinitesimal, portion of contributions that are undesirable. However, this proposal is a far better cry from the current status quo.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there are indeed plenty of good things in Bill C‑25. There are also many things the committee will have to take a very close look at. The Bloc Québécois has a lot of concerns. One thing that is not in the bill is political party financing, and I am wondering why the government opted not to tackle that.
Members are talking about foreign interference and public confidence in politicians, which is not exactly at an all-time high. The government could have taken this opportunity to make changes to political party financing.
Can my colleague explain why the government opted not to go in that direction even though this bill provided the opportunity to do so?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc Québécois and applaud its contributions. I am also looking forward to hearing its comments and suggestions over the course of the legislative process. Once again, I think that this has been a shining example of collaboration, and we shall see where these proposals lead.
Where political financing is concerned, Canada has reason to be proud. In other countries, there are no limits on anonymous or foreign contributions. Here in Canada, we have very strict political financing rules, with relatively low limits compared to almost any other democracy in the world. This is a point of pride for us.
It is true that this bill has little to do with political party financing. I do not know whether the member wanted to discuss political party financing specifically or something else. Perhaps he could clarify that during the debate. I would be pleased to discuss the issue with him.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot in the media about terribly long ballots, and about deepfakes impersonating people in politics. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on the negative impact that has on voter confidence in our democracy, and also the dangers we face if those malicious and nefarious behaviours remain unchecked by legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is an example of a loophole. I want to thank my colleague for her commitment to our democracy as well.
With respect to longest ballot initiatives, let us be frank about this. There was repeated targeting of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard, whether in Carleton or in Battle River—Crowfoot. There was also targeting of the by-election in Terrebonne. Voters have been, I think, resoundingly saying in all those cases and others that they do not like these ballots. For persons with disabilities, they are a barrier to voting. For the administration, volunteers and election officials, right up to and including the Chief Electoral Officer, they are a major hassle.
What we are saying is that if someone wants to run in an election, as all of us have and will, they need a single financial agent who can be the financial agent for only one candidate.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. minister a very direct question and thank him for improvements made in the amendments in Bill C-25 to the Elections Act.
I wonder if the minister could give the House a quick rundown on the sections of former Bill C-65, which had been through committee, was being studied and had elements that are not included in this act. I wonder if he could explain why the government chose not to include improvements to the Elections Act from slightly more than a year ago that are now not included, such as removing obstacles for the collection of signatures for candidates.
Mr. Speaker, we have certainly engaged in a process. I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and her party for their constructive participation, and I look forward to her suggestions as this debate unfolds.
In fact, with Bill C-65 in the last Parliament, proposals to amend the Elections Act, some of those proposals emanated from the processes I outlined, notably recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and from the commissioner, and some others did not emanate from them.
My purpose in developing Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, was to have a unifying vote of the chamber and a unifying debate in the chamber, where all members could feel comfortable getting behind the initiatives and proposals, and working together, the 343 of us, to strengthen our democracy, contrary to what is perhaps going on in some other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my previous question. As I understood the government House leader's answer, with the exception to third parties being able to use their revenues rather than setting up an individual bank account, there would be some possibility of melding or of foreign monies.
Would it not be better simply to eliminate the exception and require all third parties to set up a separate bank account and have contributions from individual Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my openness to that suggestion.
I think my colleague, the government and I are united on the objective. From my perspective, I would be happy to engage with the member, his party and other colleagues on any proposal that would eliminate the possibility of foreign money, dark money and otherwise inappropriate financial involvement in our electoral processes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This bill would make a number of substantive amendments to the act. It is, in some respects, a technical bill with many moving pieces. Those pieces include welcome measures to counter the disruptive and anti-democratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee. This bill also contains welcome measures to counter foreign interference in our elections, as well as nomination and leadership contests. The bill would largely close loopholes that exist with respect to foreign funding of third parties. Additionally, the bill would create a number of new offences and extend existing offences under the act to leadership and nomination contests, and the bill would give significant new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections to undertake investigations and to enforce the act, among other measures. As I said, it contains a number of moving parts.
Before getting into some of the particulars of the bill, let me say that, on the whole, the measures contained in the bill are welcome. That is not to say that amendments need not be considered. I think in some instances they do. Moreover, certain measures within the bill warrant careful scrutiny, particularly some of the new offences, as well as the additional powers being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. With that said, Conservatives support debating this bill vigorously at second reading and then getting it to the procedure and House affairs committee for further study, review and possible amendments.
Let us move on to the particulars of the bill. The bill does deal with the very unwelcome activities of the longest ballot committee. We have seen, in the last number of years, the spectacle of this rogue group flooding the ballot in targeted ridings with fake candidates who have no interest in campaigning, no interest in engaging in voters, do not put forward substantive policy positions and have no interest in getting elected. They are merely names on a ballot, all part of a coordinated scheme to weaponize the ballot and undermine the democratic process.
The longest ballot committee has been able to flood the ballot by taking advantage of certain provisions in the Canada Elections Act. The clearest example is the signature threshold with respect to nomination papers. Under the act, a candidate must obtain 100 signatures from electors in the riding to get on the ballot. The longest ballot committee has identified roughly the same pool of 100 voters and encouraged or invited those voters to then sign the nomination forms of all of the fake candidates that they seek to get onto the ballot. This is a clear abuse of the Canada Elections Act insofar as the purpose of that section is to require that a candidate have the support of at least 100 electors, not that the same 100 voters can flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. It is a low threshold, but a threshold nonetheless.
Let me say, for those who would dismiss the activities of the longest ballot committee as some sort of joke or something to shrug off, that nothing could be further from the truth. The activities of the longest ballot committee have had very negative consequences for voters, for candidates and for Elections Canada. We saw in Carleton, for example, 91 fake candidates, resulting in a metre-long ballot. What impact do things like a metre-long ballot have on elections?
They certainly cause voter confusion. They create barriers for persons with certain disabilities. They make it more difficult to administer elections. They create barriers for legitimate candidates to break through with voters and they cause long delays in tabulating the vote, with the overall effect of undermining confidence in the democratic process. The activities of the longest ballot committee need to be put to a stop.
The bill contains measures that would, I believe, largely achieve that objective, including requiring that electors sign only one candidate's nomination form and making it an offence to sign multiple forms, as well as requiring that an official agent act for only one candidate per riding. The longest ballot committee, other than in the most recent Terrebonne by-election, had, effectively, the same agent acting for all of the candidates. It would normally be seen as a conflict of interest to be acting for multiple candidates who were supposedly competing against one another, which would be the case if these were legitimate candidates instead of what amounts to a total and complete sham of the electoral process by the longest ballot committee.
On another matter, with respect to the third party regime, the bill does, in large part, close identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding of third parties. Integral to our democratic process is that our elections should be decided by Canadians, free of foreign influence and foreign interference, yet there are very significant loopholes that have allowed foreign interests, foreign actors, to influence our elections with witting third parties.
One might ask how this is possible, given that, for example, section 349.02 of the Canada Elections Act states that no third party shall use funds for a regulated activity if the source of the funds is a foreign entity.
There are two loopholes, in practice. One is a melding-of-funds issue, whereby certain contributions can be treated as part of the general revenue of the registered third party. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer about this at the procedure and House affairs committee and he confirmed that this loophole exists. It is described as follows:
Third parties are required only to record contributions given to them for the purpose of engaging in regulated activities. Contributions received for no specific purpose, or no purpose directly linked to regulated electoral activities, are treated as general revenue. If they are used for regulated activities, they are reported as forming part of the third party's own funds or resources.
In other words, if the contribution is specifically sent for a regulated activity, for the purpose of engaging in a regulated activity, foreign funds would be prohibited, but if they are sent in a general way, they might be able to be used, which means that, hypothetically, third parties could have 100% of their funds being from a foreign source.
Another loophole that exists is with respect to the transferring of funds or the funnelling of funds through various intermediaries. For example, if foreign entity A transferred money to Canadian intermediary B, and Canadian intermediary B transferred the money to a third party entity, it would be treated as a contribution from Canadian intermediary B, even though the ultimate source of the funds was foreign. That is problematic. I should add that it is hardly hypothetical. These are loopholes that have been exploited.
I saw this first-hand. Back in 2017, I filed a complaint with the commissioner of Canada elections in which nearly $700,000 U.S. from the U.S.-based Tides Foundation was funnelled into eight registered third parties that campaigned against the Harper government in the 2015 election. That is just one example. Because of these loopholes and the total lack of transparency, we do not know how often this is occurring, but it is a problem having regard for the fact that only Canadians should determine the outcome of our elections, free from foreign influence and interference.
This bill would largely, but not entirely, close these very problematic loopholes by requiring third parties to set up separate bank accounts in which they can only use the funds or donations of individual Canadians or PRs for regulated activities. There is an exception to that, which is that if a third party has contributions of less than 10% of its overall revenue in the year prior to the pre-writ period, it can use its own funds and does not need to set up a separate bank account.
That does raise questions about whether there are circumstances in which foreign funds could be treated as being melded with the general funds of a third party. For example, if a foreign entity sent money to a third party the year prior to the pre-writ period, would those funds be treated as melded? That is just one example.
Given the fact that we have fixed election dates in which the timing of an election is often relatively foreseeable, it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which foreign actors take advantage of such a loophole to the degree that it may exist with this exception. All of this is to say that this needs to be carefully examined at the procedure and House affairs committee.
It is my view that the best solution to getting rid of the possibility of foreign money being used to influence our elections through third parties is to simply require that all third parties set up a separate bank account in which they use the contributions of individual Canadians and PRs. That seems to me to be the most straightforward, the most transparent and the most democratic approach. It would put third parties closer to the same playing field as political parties insofar as political parties can only use the contributions of individual Canadians and PRs.
I am pleased that in the questions I posed to the minister, he expressed openness to considering such an amendment and more broadly that he supports closing loopholes that allow for the use of foreign funding. I would hope that, at the very least, whether the government supports that amendment or not, it would support amendments to close any loopholes to the extent that they exist as a result of this exception.
Speaking of foreign interference, this bill would extend certain existing offences under the Canada Elections Act to leadership and nomination contests. For example, one such offence is with respect to undue influence by foreigners, which would include a person or entity knowingly incurring expenses to directly promote or oppose a nomination contestant or leadership contestant.
We have seen that leadership and nomination contests have been exploited. There is a vulnerability there. Madam Justice Hogue noted that nomination contests, for example, are the primary “gateway” and vulnerability for foreign interference in the democratic process. We saw a very clear example of that in the Liberal nomination in 2019 in Don Valley North, where the Beijing Toronto consulate was involved in organizing and coordinating international students from outside of the riding to support a certain candidate, who ultimately won that nomination and was elected to this place. I have to say that it was a scandal, because we know that former prime minister Justin Trudeau was informed about Beijing's interference in the 2019 election and turned a blind eye to it. Madam Justice Hogue concluded that he did so out of direct concern for electoral consequences to the Liberal Party. Needless to say, what happened in Don Valley North demonstrates the need for extending certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act relating to offences around foreign interference to nomination contests, as well as leadership contests.
With respect to some of the measures within the bill that warrant further scrutiny, I would note that administrative monetary penalties are increasing significantly: from $1,500, the maximum penalties for individuals at present, to $25,000. For organizations, the maximum administrative penalties are going up from $5,000 to $100,000. These represent a very significant increase. If the commissioner of Elections Canada is imposing an administrative penalty of $100,000, which is a pretty punitive penalty, it begs the question, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, whether in circumstances such as that the appropriate course of action would be to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions and to proceed by way of criminal prosecution.
The need for scrutiny is underscored by the fact that under this bill, the commissioner would no longer, in all circumstances, need to get judicial authorization in order to compel evidence. We need to scrutinize these new powers for the commissioner to ensure that they are balanced and proportionate and do not unduly infringe upon due process rights.
With respect to some of the new offences, they also need to be scrutinized, particularly through the lens of ensuring that they are charter-compliant and do not infringe upon freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as well as ensuring that they do not have any unintended and harmful chilling effects with respect to free speech.
Let me say, in closing, that the amendments brought forward in this bill are a step forward. They are a positive step forward. They close existing loopholes that have been exploited by foreign interests and foreign actors. They provide new powers to better protect the integrity of our elections. I look forward to carefully reviewing the bill at committee.
Mr. Speaker, that was a well-considered speech and I, indeed, look forward to continuing the debate and consideration of this very important piece of legislation.
Among the other interesting elements of the member's speech, I note his comments on the longest ballot. Some of the commentary around this is almost adulating in terms of applauding what I would consider to be the harassment of electors that is engendered by the behaviour of the longest ballot committee. It is truly, as the member pointed out, a perversion of some of our rules.
I wonder if the member has additional thoughts on the measures that we have put in place and if he believes that they will be sufficient to recentre the local contests that characterize our elections and to make people be legitimate and considered candidates in these elections.
Mr. Speaker, I share with the government House leader the fact that this so-called committee has attacked the democratic process and caused great disruption to voters. To that end, the measures contained in this bill are consistent, with recommendations that Conservatives have called for and that were adopted by the procedure and House affairs committee. When it undertook a study on the activities of the longest ballot committee, we had a unanimous report and there was consensus. Not all of those recommendations were included in this bill, but many of the key ones were. For those that were not, I would suggest that perhaps consideration be given to them for the possibility of further amendment to the bill, to further strengthen the bill as it pertains to preventing groups like the longest ballot committee from disrupting future elections.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his expertise on this matter. His speeches are always impressive. That said, we do have some reservations about Bill C-25. Of course we support the principle, but the bill covers many different subjects. For example, people will be prohibited from signing more than one nomination paper. We in the Bloc Québécois view this with some skepticism, because it would mean that those doing so are publicly endorsing a candidate. Not only that, but the Chief Electoral Officer has said that it would be very complicated, even from an administrative standpoint, to manage this situation and verify whether people have endorsed a single candidate. It could take hours and hours of work, and Elections Canada would need a lot more employees just to verify the nominations.
Is my colleague open to other solutions to address the issue of longer ballots?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing all solutions, but it seems to me that this is the most practical way of addressing the abuses of the electoral process perpetrated by the longest ballot committee. The purpose and intent of the act is for a candidate to receive the support of 100 electors, not for a pool of 100 electors to sign an endless list of nomination forms to get candidates on the ballot. I would add that this issue was studied at committee and the Chief Electoral Officer, among others, said this was a reasonable solution.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has a lot in it to support, but how can Canadians have confidence in the assurances within this bill when the government is actively using committee procedures to block the finance minister from appearing for transparency and accountability?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Cambridge raises a good point. The finance minister has declared a conflict in respect of Alto, the company that is working to build a high-speed rail line, because his spouse is a VP at Alto. Nonetheless, the finance minister repeatedly introduced, spoke to and voted on legislation relating to Alto and advancing that project, including billions of dollars. It does raise questions about a potential conflict of interest.
We are calling on the minister to come to the ethics committee to answer questions and clear the air. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Instead, we have seen a filibuster by Liberal MPs that has gone on for 14 hours. My view is that if the minister has nothing to hide, the Liberals would end the filibuster and the minister would come to committee.
Mr. Speaker, since the official opposition has had good success in obtaining amendments by working with the government, I wonder if the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River will be willing to pursue changes to the Elections Act that were in former Bill C-65, which died on the Order Paper when the House prorogued on January 6 of last year. Might he be willing to get amendments over the line in committee to address the issue of the difficulty presented to candidates in collecting signatures, as was addressed in Bill C-65?
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the hon. member that the threshold makes it difficult to collect sufficient signatures to get onto the ballot. All that is required is the signatures of 100 electors, and in certain ridings the threshold is even lower. If anything should be considered, it should be increasing the threshold with respect to signatures, not reducing the number.
Mr. Speaker, prior to my election in 2025, I was a financial agent for multiple members during elections and for further EDAs. I just want the member to clarify that the whole intent of this is to restrict the financial agents within one particular EDA, one particular riding, to not have competition. However, if a financial agent is able to help out in three different ridings that are not competing, that is not really what this is getting at. This is actually just getting at somebody doing multiple ones in one particular election or by-election.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Yellowhead has that exactly right. Nothing would preclude someone from acting as an official agent to multiple candidates, provided those candidates are running in different ridings. It would simply prohibit an official agent from acting for multiple candidates in the same riding.
Mr. Speaker, the member and I worked together very closely on the procedure and House affairs committee in a previous Parliament and extensively studied the issue of foreign interference.
There are many ridings in this country that we would call a “safe seat”, one that has always been blue, red or a certain colour. Essentially, anyone who obtained the nomination in a nomination contest would be guaranteed to be sent to the House of Commons. Could the member elaborate a little on some of those issues with respect to nominations and the prevention of foreign interference in nomination contests that would essentially make sure that a preferred candidate gets elected in the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the member on the procedure and House affairs committee.
The member is exactly right. We have seen instances where nomination contests have been exploited by foreign actors. We saw that in 2019 in Don Valley North, and we have seen it in other ridings. This is something that needs to be addressed. Frankly, it is long overdue. At the procedure and House affairs committee, we had something like 70 meetings on foreign interference, in which this came up frequently.
The bill does extend certain offences to nomination contests, and quite appropriately so. However, I would add that the government can do a lot more, including getting the foreign influence registry up and running. The government said that it was going to be up and running in June 2025, then by the fall of 2025, then by the end of the year, and it is still not up and running. It needs to be set up and operating as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the government House leader and the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River for their highly informative and interesting speeches. I would also like to thank the government for taking the time, with this bill, to consult the opposition parties and listen to the different suggestions and recommendations that we made.
The bill seeks to reform the Canada Elections Act, and nothing is more important than the public's trust in its democratic institutions. That trust is exactly what this bill seeks to strengthen, and the highly collaborative approach that was taken actually helps to do just that, because all members of Parliament are participating in the process. This is not something that can be done unilaterally and I commend the way in which this bill was introduced.
I would like to outline our views on this bill in four parts. First, there are the points on which we agree. In fact, the government House leader has spoken about them at great length. I would also like to raise a few concerns regarding certain aspects or questions on which we would like more information in committee when the bill is referred there. I will briefly touch on what we would have liked to see in the bill. Finally, I think I will be the first to mention that the bill also includes a provision changing the name of certain ridings. I will briefly address that toward the end.
Nevertheless, we agree with a large part of this bill. We are quite satisfied with many aspects of this bill, including the firm commitment to address the issue of foreign interference by expanding offences tied to influencing an elector. We know that foreign interference exits. There have been lengthy committee studies and hearings, including with Commissioner Hogue, who reported on this issue. The bill would introduce measures to strengthen the Canada Elections Act and add offences to address interference to influence an elector to vote for a certain candidate or to dissuade them from voting altogether, which would have an impact on the potential outcome of an election. We welcome those measures.
We also welcome the fact that it gives a nod to events in Quebec and what is commonly know as the “anti-brownie bill”. We also welcome the fact that rules that were already in place for regular general elections have been extended to nomination and leadership contests. For example, the bill bans donations, financial consideration or any other consideration in exchange for voting for a candidate. As my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne mentioned, sometimes, it is harder to win a nomination contest than an election in some ridings where electoral history makes the outcome largely predictable. As such, it is great that the rules have been extended to nomination and leadership contests.
The bill also seeks to strengthen transparency around the sources of donations to prevent donations from anonymous, opaque sources or hostile foreign third parties. The bill bans the use of cryptocurrency and prepaid credit card contributions to make it easier to trace and identify funding sources. We welcome these aspects. Penalties are also being increased and new ones involving disinformation and deepfakes are being created. This is a timely issue. The bill will ensure that it will no longer be possible to misinform electors about polling locations or the conduct of an election. It will ensure the democratic process follows its course. All of these changes proposed in the bill are quite welcome.
Our main reservations have to do with the issue of the longest ballot committee, which has been the subject of discussion. The issue was discussed in committee and, basically, all parties are in agreement. While we welcome the fact that there is good voter participation and that people want to get involved and stand for election, unfortunately, as we have seen in the past, the electoral process has been taken hostage by candidates that do not actually want to be elected or to convey a message. They used their candidacy not for the right reasons, but to divert the election from its true purpose, jeopardizing part of the electoral process.
Some ballots have had a long list of names, including more than 200 in the riding of Battle River—Crowfoot, which meant that it took longer to count votes, ballot boxes filled up ten times faster, and electors were forced to write in the names of candidates on plain ballot papers. The longest ballot had so many names that it was becoming problematic and difficult to handle for some individuals, resulting in higher costs, so the choice was between the lesser of two evils, namely, a very long ballot or a blank ballot.
Parties agreed that this issue had to be dealt with. We agree with most of the measures to address the issues, including the fact that an official agent should only be able to act on behalf of one candidate per riding, even though they can represent several candidates in different ridings. No one had any objection to this, which is common practice, to an extent. The fact that one official agent could represent several candidates in the same riding ultimately brought to the fore the ridiculous nature of the longest ballot initiative.
We also agree with the idea of creating an offence for soliciting or inciting someone to sign more than one nomination form in the context of an organized operation. We also agreed with the idea of having penalties for collecting signatures on nomination papers that do not bear the name of the candidate. We completely agree with that.
However, for a number of reasons, we do not fully agree with the idea of requiring that electors only sign one nomination form. This may be perceived as a breach of ballot secrecy. A person who is told that they can only sign one nomination form may perceive this as a desire to support a specific candidate even though, in principle, that is not the case; the idea is to support the possibility for someone to be a candidate.
One has to wonder if this is putting the onus on the right person, the elector, rather than on the candidate or the group of candidates who want to collect signatures. The elector will be required to remember whether they have signed more than one form and to choose the form they will sign. They will also be prevented from signing more than one nomination form even if they would have liked to see two different candidates on the ballot. Furthermore, some electors are used to signing an opponent's ballot in order to have democratic debates. I have done that myself a few times.
There is also a risk of harming bona fide candidates. The Chief Electoral Officer told us that if signatures appear on two different sets of nomination papers, for example, then it would be basically impossible to know which papers were signed first. What do we do with the signature that has to be removed? In any case, the Chief Electoral Officer also told us that it would take a fairly long time to compile the signatures and that a candidate should not be prevented from running if they have many signatures on their nomination papers. Would limiting the number of so-called bogus nominations in an election really have a positive impact? One has to wonder. We do not think that it is the best idea to limit nomination papers to one signature per elector. It has more drawbacks than actual benefits and no real impact on the final number of candidates running in an election.
One thing we are glad to not see in the bill is the requirement for individuals who want to stand as candidates to make a financial deposit. That issue was discussed in committee. I am happy that requirement is not in the bill because that monetary burden could have had an impact on candidates, including me. In 2019, I was beginning my career. If I had been required to pay $1,500 to run for election, I may not be here today. When I ran in 2008‑09 as a young student, I would not have been able to do it. If political parties had to pay that amount, it could be too heavy a burden for some smaller parties. For example, in order to run 343 candidates at $1,500 a head, a third party would have to spend half a million dollars simply to run candidates. That would also limit the number of parties and candidates who would want to run as independents. In our opinion, that would be a needless and excessive burden. We are pleased that it is not in the bill.
One issue that we have with the bill involves the whole concept of what could be called cash for access, and I look forward to hearing greater clarification about that in committee.
There is a very delicate balance to be struck between the need for transparency in the process of providing donations in exchange for access to decision-makers and the importance of protecting individual privacy and security. Some of the information I received during briefings and discussions seemed to contradict my own interpretation of the bill. That is why I am eager to learn more in committee about the ultimate purpose of this measure. I will explain.
Before that, however, I want to point to an example to explain cash for access. In May 2016, the Globe and Mail revealed that Chinese businessmen had access to the then prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, during private receptions, in exchange for $1,500, the price of admission. A short time later, it was noted that Wealth One Bank had gotten the green light to become a chartered bank. A connection was thus established between the access these businessmen gained to the Prime Minister at a cocktail party or an exclusive gathering and the bank's subsequent approval to become a chartered bank.
These select gatherings are sometimes held in private homes, and the guest lists are limited but can sometimes include lobbyists, so there is a risk that access to an elected official could be exchanged for money and party funding. However, I understand that it is important to protect people's private addresses, particularly from doxxing, when personal information is shared for malicious purposes. I am eager to see how that balance can be struck.
I also want to make sure I fully understand the amendments proposed in the bill with respect to protecting the identities of individuals who attend or organize these very private and exclusive fundraising events. I am open to discussion as long as two objectives can be met: first, transparency concerning the funding sources and the private and exclusive fundraising events that are being held, and second, the protection of the people who organize them, including the protection of their personal information and addresses.
That said, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, we would have liked the bill to address the issue of bringing back public funding for political parties. In a context of foreign interference, we believe that would have been a good idea. It is worth noting that this kind of amendment can be done at no cost. I want to suggest a potentially useful course of action.
Currently, when someone donates money to a party, they can get a tax receipt. For example, if they donate $400, they are eligible for a tax credit of up to $300. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates this costs the government approximately $35 million to $45 million annually, depending on the year. Obviously, during an election year, people give more, so the cost to the government is higher. Between elections, the cost is slightly lower, which explains the wide range of the estimate.
If the concept of tax refunds were replaced with funding of about $2 per vote, for example, the cost would be $40 million. Parties would ultimately receive the same amount of funding from the government, but in a much more democratic way. For example, when I give $400 to the Bloc Québécois, I am forcing the government to give $300 to the Bloc Québécois. I am influencing where the public funds will end up, meaning which party will get the money. If we change the system, funding could be tied to the democratic will of Canadians. The amount of funding would depend on how Canadians vote, not on which parties' donors have the deepest pockets.
I think that limiting tax refunds and using the money to fund political parties based on the number of votes they receive would be a more authentic democratic exercise. We could also limit the maximum donation per contributor. We think it should be lowered to $500 to avoid larger contributions, particularly from foreign actors.
Finally, on the issue of changing constituency names, MPs from various parties have proposed a list of new names for their constituencies. In the case of the Bloc Québécois, there are three. Allow me to list them. We would like the constituency of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon to be renamed Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent; the constituency of Jonquière to be renamed Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets; and the constituency of Rimouski—La Matapédia to be renamed Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques.
The name changes proposed by the Bloc Québécois are the result of consultations held with the public, with local councillors and with elected representatives from the various regional county municipalities, or RCMs. One of the tools used by the Bloc Québécois to gauge what voters in a constituency think of a particular name proposal is the use of mass mailings, which is an excellent tool available to parliamentarians for taking the pulse of the public and gauging their views on various issues. I know that my colleagues who proposed these amendments carried out this exercise beforehand. They consulted their constituents and ensured that the name they were proposing truly reflected the will of the constituents and also truly represented their constituency.
When it comes to renaming constituencies, we typically trust that the members proposing names have also used this process to ensure that the name they are submitting truly reflects the will of the people. I therefore defer to my colleagues from other parties who are also suggesting changes to constituency names and trust that they did the groundwork on the name change and factored in the reception it received. I can assure the House, however, that our members were truly committed to ensuring that the name genuinely reflected the will of their constituents.
I am getting to the end of my remarks on the bill. I would once again like to commend the government for its openness regarding this bill and particularly for its willingness to work collaboratively on issues as sensitive as foreign interference. I believe that on some matters, we must set partisan differences aside and work for the common good. I expect that this will be the attitude adopted by all members who will be working on the bill in committee.
It has certainly been on display here and was also mentioned by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs during its study of the longest ballot. The questions put to the various stakeholders truly reflected a desire to improve the situation and rise above purely partisan ends, with some exceptions. Of course, from time to time we need to spice things up a little. On the whole, however, the process was very constructive and very collaborative.
I commend the work that was accomplished, and I expect it to continue in the same way moving forward, with healthy, constructive discussions ultimately leading to a bill that is unanimously supported, agreed on and approved by all the parties.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague's speech, and I would like to reiterate that we should be proud of the fact that, in Canada, all parties represented in the House of Commons have made a solemn commitment to strengthen our democracy.
One of the things that struck me was her remarks about political financing. In a way, René Lévesque was the father of public financing of political parties in Canada. Later, Mr. Chrétien essentially implemented the same system. The two original proposals contained provisions on public funding of political parties.
Personally, I agree that political parties are a public good and are essentially made up of volunteers. They are entities unlike any others in our democracy, and our political parties are often put to the test and scrutinized. It is the most closely monitored “industry” in Canada, but I also commend political parties that are made up of volunteers and are a public good.
I am therefore wondering whether the member could elaborate on her vision of public funding in Canada, while acknowledging the groundwork that has been laid to ensure the integrity of our funding system.
Mr. Speaker, I've already commented on that, but one proposal for public funding that we felt would be a reasonable compromise was to bring back the per-vote amount that used to be allocated to each party. That ended under Stephen Harper. At the time, it was about $1.75 per vote. One idea would be to reinstate that at $2.
We could certainly discuss the particulars, but, hypothetically, if it were reinstated at $2 per vote, since there are roughly 19 million voters in Canada, it would cost about $40 million per year. It would be roughly equivalent to the tax credit for contributions to political parties. If the government eliminated that tax credit and spent the money on per-vote contributions, it would be a wash. It would also be more democratic, as I suggested, because the government's contribution would be tied to the number of votes, not to party donors' ability to donate.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate everything the member has spoken about this morning. I listened very closely.
My constituents have been looking forward to this, specifically around the issues of longest ballots and combatting foreign interference. However, there is angst for constituents in the fact that implementing the foreign registry has been so delayed while at the same time the federal government is moving towards a law enforcement agreement with China. I would like the member to speak to that and to the concerns around making sure that what we are saying is also what would be accomplished and accomplished quickly.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Obviously, nothing should be done in isolation when it comes to foreign interference. I certainly appreciate Bill C-25. However, is it sufficient on its own? Will it alone be enough to counter foreign interference? Obviously, it will not. We cannot resolve everything through a single bill that targets something very specific, namely the Canada Elections Act.
Foreign interference takes many forms. Yes, it manifests itself through elections, obviously, and that is the very heart of the matter, but it is not the only way, and we must not view it through a narrow lens. On the issue of the registry, people have expressed frustration at the time lag between the introduction of the bill, its passage, the implementation of the registry, and the appointment of a commissioner.
The sooner this is done, the better. Of course we should not cut corners, but the longer we wait, the more things fester. As the saying goes, he who hesitates is lost. That is no less true when it comes to foreign interference.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her speech. Once again, I think that all the speeches by all the parties today were top-notch in terms of their grasp of the file. My colleague shared that the process was very collaborative. A lot of consultations took place before the bill was tabled.
My question is fairly simple. What hopes or fears does my colleague have about the bill's study in committee? On what specific issues might the Bloc Québécois introduce amendments, or at any rate, what specific issues might it call on witnesses to discuss?
Mr. Speaker, I think it was fairly clear when I described the issue of nomination papers and the fact that electors can only sign once. The Bloc produced a supplementary report on this topic and tabled it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when we were looking into the longest ballot committee.
It is reasonable to expect that we will be proposing amendments about this as well. We shall see to what extent our colleagues will listen to us, even though they seem firmly committed to the idea of limiting the number of signatures. Perhaps we will hear from different witnesses who will shed further light on the matter.
In addition, as I mentioned earlier, we would have liked to see the issue of public funding of parties in the bill. Will we be able to table amendments on this subject? They would likely be considered to be beyond the scope of the bill, which is unfortunate. The government had a great opportunity to get the job done, but that does not mean the Bloc Québécois will give up on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, in which she briefly outlined how she consulted her constituents regarding the renaming of constituencies.
I would like her to explain to me how important it is to respect the image and identity of a region that is being incorporated into a new constituency.
Mr. Speaker, in my case, my riding will not be changing its name. In fact, a short name like Saint-Jean is quite inclusive and the people of Saint‑Jean identify quite well with that name. Rather, I was talking about the work that my colleagues have done, specifically to ensure that the identity of their region is honoured.
This was done through consultations with various municipal officials and, in some cases, through surveys sent to all voters in the riding. We are able to do so using parliamentary tools available to us, like householders. We can send out little cards proposing various names or even proposing to keep the name. It is up to the voter to indicate their intention and interest. The Bloc Québécois did this work to ensure that the name changes truly reflect the reality on the ground and the will of the people. I can assure my colleague of that.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean said, this is indeed a very high-level debate we are having today.
I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River, who is always very eloquent when it comes to discussing an issue close to his heart, particularly this one. I probably should not say this, because we are not supposed to mention whether someone is in the House or not, but I would also like to thank the minister, who attended all the debates and listened very attentively. Heaven knows he has his hands full as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Transport.
Now, I would like to make two comments regarding the names of the ridings before I ask my main question. I completely agree, and I would like to remind everyone of what we did in Louis-Saint-Laurent. As everyone knows, the Wendake First Nation is in my riding. I contacted the grand chief and the nation's council at the time to ask them to make a suggestion. They proposed “Akiawenhrahk”, a name I am very proud to bear. It is the name of the Saint-Charles River. We do need to explain the history a bit. It was not easy for many people to say it correctly the first time. I have always managed it on the first try, of course, but a few people have had some difficulty. Just recently, on television, during an interview on LCN, the name came out a bit wrong. That gave me the opportunity to explain why it is pronounced that way. We are making good use of these suggestions from the community, as my colleague so aptly put it, and I invite everyone to do the same.
My question is this. Indeed, there may be some legitimate concerns about signatures on the ballot to avoid long ballots. I would like to hear my colleague talk about her proposals, which could be as helpful as allowing a single person to sign a ballot, which would allow—
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his comment. We will discuss riding names in private afterwards. As for the question about the longest ballot committee, I think that the other measures already included in the bill, namely making it an offence to encourage people to sign more than one ballot and having one official agent per riding, are already enough to address this issue.
As I mentioned, if we were to add a requirement to only have one signature, the Chief Electoral Officer would not be able to quickly determine whether there were in fact multiple signatures. If we were to prevent a candidate from running because there were multiple signatures, we might be undermining good-faith candidates. We would not be able to do it in a timely manner anyway, so even if we were to implement this measure, we would not be able to prevent many candidates from running.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.
It is my honour to rise today to speak on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, specifically about the bill's timely and comprehensive amendments to address unduly long ballots. I want to echo what my colleagues have been saying in the House, specifically the government House leader and our colleagues from opposition. This was collaboration amongst parties. I have the privilege of sitting on the committee that will receive this bill and continue to work, in good faith, on the amendments that come forward. Hopefully in that same good faith, we will see this bill pass quickly to address the many concerns that we have heard from Canadians.
Canada's democracy is among the strongest and most stable in the world. At the heart of this vibrant democracy are free, fair and accessible elections. Accessible elections reflect a core Canadian value that all Canadians will be able to cast their ballot without facing undue challenges.
In recent years, however, the accessibility of federal elections has been challenged by the actions of those coordinated movements known for registering a large number of independent candidates who are not running to serve as members of Parliament. Rather, they are choosing this method as a means of protesting Canada's electoral system and the ways in which our electoral laws are made. Since 2019 this group has targeted three general elections and six by-elections, including the most recent by-election in Terrebonne.
During the 45th general election in 2025, the number of candidates included on the ballot in the electoral district of Carleton reached 91, most of whom received fewer than 10 votes. This resulted in a ballot that was close to one metre in length. In Terrebonne, some candidates on the ballot received zero votes. The August 2025 by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot, Alberta featured 214 candidates, 201 of whom were affiliated with the longest ballot movement and shared the same official agents.
In October 2025, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC, undertook a study that looked at the issue of long ballots. The committee presented its report to Parliament in March of this year, and all of its recommendations are contained in Bill C-25.
[Translation]
It is important to point out that the protest movement did not affect our election results, which shows just how strong, robust and secure our electoral system really is. However, the group's actions did make the administration of the election a lot more confusing and complicated. They also caused accessibility issues for voters and election workers, particularly those with disabilities.
In the elections preceding the 45th general election in 2025, the ballots in the ridings targeted by the group were much longer because of the large number of candidates. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we heard that the long ballots posed major problems for many voters, particularly those with disabilities. For example, voters with dexterity and mobility issues indicated that it was very difficult for them to handle and mark their ballots, whereas blind voters were unable to use the new assistive voting technology.
Research conducted by Elections Canada shows that 71% of voters who had difficulty filling out their ballots attributed this to a candidate list that was too long or to difficulty locating a candidate on the list, while 13% mentioned that the ballot was too long to handle or difficult to fold. In addition to voters, election workers reported significant challenges associated with long ballots. The ballot boxes used to transport ballots are much heavier and harder to carry, vote counting becomes more complex, and reporting is often delayed.
[English]
The time has come to put an end to this confusion and the complication of the accessibility challenges created by the actions of the longest ballot committee. I also want to highlight that the main concern we heard from our witnesses on this study was around the fact that people want to see better processes when it comes to elections.
There are other ways to work through that system to make sure that we have more accessible elections for Canadians and that there are different ways of participating and doing our civic duty rather than obstructing and causing this issue that has affected voters who live with a handicap.
I am personally pleased that Bill C-25 would do exactly that, through a series of targeted amendments to the Canada Elections Act, the fundamental framework that governs all aspects of federal elections in Canada.
Firstly, as suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer, Bill C-25 would limit voters to signing only one candidate nomination paper per election, recognizing that, to date, candidates associated with unduly long ballots often obtain the required number of signatures by having the same person sign multiple nomination forms. Not only would this mitigate the issue of long ballots, but it would also reinforce the original intention behind the Canada Elections Act's signature requirement, which is to demonstrate sufficient local support for a specific individual's candidacy.
However, also aligned with the Chief Electoral Officer's expert recommendation, the nomination of candidates would not be refused if an elector signs more than one candidate nomination paper. This is because candidates who are not affiliated with a coordinated protest movement are unlikely to have knowledge of or control over whether an elector has already signed another candidate's nomination form.
For individuals who contravene the new signature requirements, the commissioner of Canada elections, the independent agent who is responsible for enforcing the Canada Elections Act, would have a number of tools at her disposal to encourage compliance with the act depending on the unique circumstances and contravention. This would include information letters, warning letters, and depending on the severity of the infraction, administrative monetary penalties.
Secondly, this bill would limit official agents who are responsible for managing campaign finances and reporting all financial activities to Elections Canada to working for one candidate per electoral district per election. This step would recognize the important and substantial role that official agents play and their responsibility toward the candidate they represent. To ensure compliance with this, it is already the case under the Canada Elections Act that individuals who serve as an official agent when ineligible to do so may face consequences, including warning letters or administrative monetary penalties, and up to more significant fines or even jail time.
Bill C-25 also includes a number of other measures that would protect the integrity of Elections Canada in addressing long ballots. For example, Bill C-25 includes measures that would ensure that the commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for enforcing our Canada Elections Act, could hold individuals to account who encourage or incite others to sign multiple nomination forms, and to prohibit false information in candidate nomination papers.
Taken together, these measures would help address long ballots, protect election administration, accessibility and integrity, and ensure that when voters head to the polls, they are presented with genuine lists of candidates who legitimately want to serve the interests of Canadians.
[Translation]
In closing, as I said earlier, the federal election process includes many measures to protect our electoral system and keep it strong, including measures governing the secrecy of the vote count, the security of the vote count and the sharing of the results. Although the long ballots did not affect the results of the election, they still created considerable challenges for candidates. Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, will address those issues and strengthen the integrity of both the candidate nomination process and the electoral process as a whole.
[English]
Obviously, this is something we studied. We had many discussions, and witnesses spoke on it. I am glad to see we are finally putting forward a bill that would make sure that our elections and voters' integrity continue to be protected.
I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues on this.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bill. The longest ballot has been a concern for quite a while. I am wondering if the member can elaborate a bit more on how this bill would ensure that the longest ballot committee could no longer function as it has in the past.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he must have missed the first part of my speech. I talked about how this is part of the measures in Bill C-25. It is one of the issues we have been addressing after bringing this to committee. We did a study on the long ballots. We had witnesses, particularly those who participated in long ballots. We understand that Canadians want to express their views on how our electoral system should go, but we also understand there are rules around that.
We are putting in new measures to ensure that long ballots can no longer continue. An official agent, for example, can sign up only one person at a time. We are also increasing the numbers of signatories that they need in order to submit a candidate.
We want to make sure that candidates who are on a ballot actually have a genuine intention to present the views of Canadians as a member of Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague opposite on her speech.
When she spoke earlier, the Bloc Québécois House leader, the member for Saint-Jean, addressed the issue of political party funding. She said that there is a zero-cost solution to improve democratic rules. She also talked about the possibility of making funding more equitable, particularly by eliminating the political contributions tax credit, which is currently costing the government money. If we were to do away with it, then that money could be redistributed based on votes. That way, rather than having to rely solely on how deep their supporters' pockets are, the parties would have the funding they need to make their voices heard and to run election campaigns that are more in line with the democratic will expressed by voters.
Does my colleague think that is a good idea?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House leader for the Bloc Québécois raised this issue earlier.
As we said, this bill was developed by consensus after a lot of hard work from all the political parties. Some amendments have been proposed. I therefore believe that this bill can be passed in the House as soon as possible so that it can be referred to committee for further study and discussion to see what we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech.
I am very pleased to learn that this bill will not change my riding's name because, subjectively speaking, I believe Les Pays-d'en-Haut is the most beautiful riding name in Canada.
Having said that, I would like my colleague to expand on the challenges of having the “longest ballot” and how the bill would address the challenges we experienced in the last two by-elections in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the name of his riding. I believe some other members might disagree with his comment.
As I said earlier, one of the goals of the many changes we hope to make through this bill is to strengthen voter protections. As we have noted, Canada's elections are among the most robust and respected in the world. Long ballots have had an impact on Canadians and on the administration of our elections. We saw this just recently in Terrebonne.
The goal is therefore to ensure that we can find other ways to allow Canadians to have their say through their votes, rather than creating obstacles in the electoral process.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today in support of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. This bill represents a critical step in protecting the integrity of our free and fair elections, elections that guarantee that the voice of Canadians is heard, respected and reflected in the direction and governance of our country.
Canada is setting a strong example by protecting and securing our elections. The Canada Elections Act, which governs all aspects of federal elections, is known around the world for its electoral safeguards, its strict political financing rules, its spending limits and its stringent reporting requirements.
Much of the Canada Elections Act's success can be directly attributed to Parliament's tradition of regularly updating it in response to recommendations from experts and new election-related challenges. However, despite our global leadership, the threats facing democracies around the world are becoming increasingly sophisticated and continue to change quickly. As a result, we have the responsibility to be proactive and decisive in strengthening our electoral safeguards. That is exactly what Bill C-25 does.
Bill C-25 is based on recommendations from independent experts, including the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections, as well as on the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, and it addresses some of the most pressing challenges facing our electoral system.
I would like to highlight the key electoral safeguards included in this important bill. To begin with, Bill C-25 extends essential electoral safeguards beyond the election campaign period. Currently, certain protections apply only once an election has been called. These include the rules prohibiting foreign individuals or organizations from unduly influencing a person’s vote, the prohibition on offering or accepting a bribe to influence a person’s vote and the prohibition on misleading publications falsely claiming to come from trusted electoral actors.
However, we know that our elections can be threatened at any time, whether or not we are in an election period. Bill C-25 therefore ensures that Canadians are protected from undue foreign influence and misleading publications at all times, not just after election writs are issued. This will not only protect our elections year-round, but it will also strengthen Canadians' confidence in the democratic process by sending a clear message that attempts at interference or misinformation are not tolerated here.
Just as importantly, the bill extends the application of key protection measures beyond Canada's borders. In today's digital and interconnected world, malicious actors can target our elections using cyber-attacks or disinformation campaigns originating from outside the country. Bill C‑25 also ensures that individuals outside Canada who seek to interfere in our elections can still be held accountable in this country. This includes prohibitions on undue influence by foreigners, offering or accepting bribes, impersonating persons such as candidates or the Chief Electoral Officer and using a computer to interfere with the conduct of an election.
By applying these robust electoral safeguards to offences originating abroad, Canada is sending a message that interference in our elections will not be tolerated under any circumstances, no matter where it the world it comes from. In this digital age, the spread of disinformation has become one of the greatest threats to our democratic processes. Bill C‑25 includes significant measures to combat disinformation that threatens to undermine, disrupt or influence elections and mislead voters.
Under this bill, it would now be illegal to knowingly spread false or misleading information about election activities or the voting process for the purpose of disrupting or influencing an election. This includes making false statements about who can vote, how to vote, where to vote, or even the results of an election. These measures are essential to ensure that Canadians receive accurate information when they go to the polls. It is also important to note that this measure does not restrict debate or limit opinions. The goal here is not to restrict free speech or punish honest mistakes, but rather to stop those with the deliberate intent to mislead Canadians, cause confusion or influence the outcome of our elections.
Canadian democracy thrives on informed participation, and Bill C‑25 protects the clarity and reliability of information that our voters receive, ensuring that disinformation has no place in our elections.
Another alarming and significant threat to electoral integrity stems from the deliberate and abusive use of advanced technologies. Whether we are talking about hacking or someone using realistic deepfakes of election officials in order to deceive voters, technology has opened new avenues for electoral interference. Bill C-25 directly addresses the dangers posed by the misuse of rapidly evolving and increasingly user-friendly technology. Consequently, the bill ensures that the existing offence under the Canada Elections Act involving the impersonation of election officials, such as the Chief Electoral Officer or candidates, includes realistic deepfakes created to deceive, whether through voice or image. However, the existing exceptions for parody and satire remain.
Bill C-25 also strengthens protections against the misuse of computers. It will be illegal to tamper or interfere with computer systems to disrupt the electoral process, including through hacking or deleting information. By taking this ever-evolving risk into account, this bill strengthens our ability to protect the technological infrastructure that lies at the heart of our electoral system.
Another safeguard in Bill C‑25 addresses a more practical challenge: the risk of overly long ballots. Long ballots can create barriers to accessible voting and disrupt election administration, causing unnecessary delays and confusion for voters and election workers, particularly those with disabilities. Specifically, once royal assent is granted, voters will be allowed to sign only one nomination paper per election, and each candidate must have their own official agent. These measures and others included in Bill C‑25 will prevent the creation of long, cumbersome ballots that complicate the voting process and the administration of elections in general. These measures also ensure that candidates run to represent voters. Furthermore, the bill ensures that election day will be as efficient as it is secure.
In conclusion, Canada's democracy is one of the strongest and most respected in the world. However, maintaining a fair and resilient electoral system requires constant vigilance and adaptation. By supporting Bill C‑25, we are strengthening the foundations of our democracy and taking necessary and proactive steps to protect our elections and our rights.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there was an instance in our party, in Markham—Unionville. The candidate won in 2015 and again in 2019. Then there was foreign interference in 2021. Months before, he was told by an outside agency that he would not win the election in 2021. This was a concern. I subbed in one day to talk about this situation. I wonder if this bill would help solve all the issues we had in Markham—Unionville in 2021.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is why I said in my speech earlier that we are constantly evolving. That is Canada's strength. We are open-minded, and the law can always be adapted to address specific cases. Bill C-25 currently addresses many issues and will ensure the integrity of our elections going forward. The next time something like this happens, we will be better equipped and better protected.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing missing from Bill C-25, it is the regulation of political party financing. We, in the Bloc Québécois, sincerely believe that the current system is hardly ideal since it costs us between $35 million and $45 million annually in public funds in the form of tax credits granted to donors.
Would it not be more democratic to go back to the old system that was in place before Stephen Harper put an end to it, where a certain amount of money was allocated to each political party for every vote cast for them? That would cost us about $40 million a year, which is roughly the same amount that the public treasury pays out in tax credits every year for political party financing.
Does my colleague not believe that this would be much more democratic, that it would actually promote democracy and that it might also be of greater help to third parties? Was it not a mistake to leave that out of Bill C-25? We could have taken this opportunity to address the issue.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. However, as I pointed out in my speech, as far as funding is concerned, this bill responds to the findings of the independent investigations conducted by the commissioner and Elections Canada. We are therefore responding to a specific request with targeted measures based on reliable and verifiable data. If changes need to be made, then we are open to that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, last year as part of the tech caucus, I delivered some AI training to my colleagues on this side of the House. As part of that training, to showcase the risks of AI, I made a deepfake of myself speaking for several minutes, fluently in French, to show them that it was me and my voice. Although I am not fluent in French, I was perfectly so in the deepfake. I was able to create such a sophisticated deepfake of myself in my office months ago, and AI and deepfakes are evolving really fast.
Could my colleague, the hon. member, explain how the legislation is long overdue for the protection of our elections?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, this bill is truly in step with the technology, which is evolving rapidly. We do not want to be left behind; rather, we want to stay ahead of the curve to ensure that technological advances are regulated, particularly when it comes to deepfakes. I would say to my colleague that this is what the bill is designed to address. We will counter any type of technological or AI intrusion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in my time today, I want to talk about two specific issues. One is foreign interference in the context of the Hogue commission, and the second is my own experience in the 2015 election and my previous nomination contest at the time.
Let us start with the Hogue commission. What did the Hogue commission say about foreign interference? It concluded that foreign states are actively attempting to interfere in Canada's democratic institutions and electoral processes. The threat is persistent and evolving, with the main state actors identified as China, India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan. The commission noted that their tactics include covert influence, disinformation, cyber activity, intimidation and the use of proxies within Canada.
The Hogue commission outlined that the 2019 and 2021 elections were not undermined, but that there was foreign influence. The commissioner found no evidence of widespread or systematic manipulation. At most, though it is still very significant, a small number of ridings may have been impacted, but that impact could not be determined with certainty; in other words, the ability of the government to determine our security apparatuses did not have the tools. There was no evidence that members of Parliament were elected because of foreign state support.
The commission found that there were no parliamentarians influenced by foreign agents. While there were some concerning and naive interactions with foreign actors, the evidence did not support allegations of systemic betrayal or treason in the context of those elections.
The commissioner outlined that the greatest threat from foreign actors is disinformation and misinformation, especially online. Those things cause the most serious, long-term threat to Canadian democracy. Social media, foreign-language platforms and AI-enabled tools are increasingly used to amplify division, discourage participation and undermine trust. Even when election outcomes are unchanged, disinformation damages confidence in democracy, which is in itself a strategic objective of hostile state actors.
The commission found that diaspora communities in Canada are disproportionately harmed. A central finding of the Hogue commission was on the human impact of foreign interference. Diaspora communities are the primary targets. Many experience transnational repression, including threats, intimidation, surveillance of family abroad and coercion. Indeed, I believe the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North had his family impacted by these very problems. These activities, in many cases, chill political participation in Canada and undermine self-expression and trust in Canadian institutions.
While government responses have improved, we have been too slow and opaque as a nation to address many of our shortcomings. Our government is slow to react to intelligence. There is poor coordination, and there are unclear responsibilities. There have been failures in intelligence flow to decision-makers, and there is insufficient transparency and public communication about the real threats that Canada faces.
Our intelligence is fragile and has limits. Much of the information about foreign interference comes from unverified or partial intelligence. Intelligence must be handled carefully to avoid unfair conclusions about individuals. The intelligence-to-evidence problem makes prosecutions difficult and requires non-criminal disruption tools.
Foreign interference, the commission notes, has already harmed our democracy by undermining trust. It has been successful in weakening public confidence in the outcomes of our elections.
The commissioner also noted that we need a whole-of-society response. We need greater transparency in public education, digital and media literacy, stronger coordination across government, engagement with civil society, and targeted action against disinformation and transnational repression.
The bottom line from the Hogue commission is that foreign interference is a real and serious threat. Although our democracy has proven resilient, we have seen some gaps and some damage because our government has not moved fast enough.
I will say that the Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-25 at second reading to go to committee so we can make improvements to our democracy. I am glad to see this type of collaboration in the House of Commons.
What would Bill C-25 do? It would extend foreign interference protections year-round. It would close channels for foreign and opaque political financing, such as cryptocurrencies, money orders and prepaid cards. It would tighten third party financing rules so that only Canadian citizens' or permanent residents' funds could be used for regulated partisan activities. It would prohibit using foreign money, property or services to influence elections in Canada. While there are still a few more loopholes we want to address at committee, this is a step in the right direction.
Bill C-25 would protect nomination and leadership contests from interference. It would ban deceptive AI deepfakes tied to elections. It would criminalize false information meant to disrupt voting. It would strengthen enforcement penalties. There would be increases to administrative monetary penalties, up to $100,000 for organizations. I think we might even consider going higher on some of those penalties if in fact our intelligence community found that foreign actors were using funds in a nefarious manner. It would improve party data protection obligations and boost foreign information threat detection capacity for our government.
This is all very important. However, I will note as well that in the last Parliament, we had Bill C-70, which was a response to the troubling findings of the Hogue commission. Still, today, despite many repeated promises, the Government of Canada has not enacted a foreign registry. Many of the things in Bill C-25 cannot be operationalized, cannot be used to their full effect, until the government fulfills its responsibility on legislation that received royal assent over a year ago. The threats to democracy are real, that has been concluded in Canada, but we have not seen the requisite action from the government to move at a speed that undermines the real problems Canadians are facing.
A foreign registry would protect democratic debate in Canada. It would address that grey zone between influence and interference. It would deter covert and deceptive behaviour. It would strengthen trust in our institutions without stigmatizing communities. It would give parliamentarians and officials a basic due diligence tool. It would align Canada with all of our Five Eyes allies, who already have a similar policy in place. It would reinforce the principle that sovereignty includes the information space and that how we conduct ourselves as MPs and engage with foreign agents or foreign governments matters in the context of protecting Canadian sovereignty.
I mention all of this in the context of a former member of Parliament, Han Dong. While the Hogue commission outlined that intelligence officials in Canada indicated that PRC officials likely attempted to influence the 2019 Liberal nomination contest in Don Valley North, there were limits to our intelligence, so the Hogue commission and the Government of Canada could not definitively determine whether those foreign students actually voted and whether or not coercion in fact occurred. I argue here today that if we had enacted the tools in Bill C-70, and if we enact the tools in Bill C-25, the findings of the Hogue commission would have been different regarding Han Dong. I think the findings would have been much worse for Mr. Dong.
I served on the HUMA committee with Mr. Dong in 2020, and it is on the parliamentary record that he spoke more about the need to have better processes and policies in place for foreign students than about any other subject matter when he got to the standing committee in the first place. How can we not, in this House, recognize that Mr. Dong was in fact influenced by those foreign students, or by the PRC officials who brought those foreign students to his nomination? I know that is a bit controversial, but the record stands for itself. Mr. Dong was here to advocate for foreign students from China, not to stand up for his constituents. I believe he was influenced, and I have no problem saying that in this chamber.
What I would love the government to do is to move swiftly with Bill C-25. The Liberals have the backing of the Conservatives. Let us tie together some of those third party financing obligations that serve Canadian sovereignty. Let us prevent another situation like that nefarious nomination in 2019. Let us give our law enforcement the tools it needs to protect Canadian sovereignty, and let us improve the processes in this place so there are clear lines of intelligence between our officials and our security apparatus. That does not exist today, but between Bill C-70, with the work the government needs to do today to enact a foreign registry, and the tools in Bill C-25, I believe we are moving in the right direction.
I am going to change subjects here because I would be remiss if I did not take an opportunity during a review of the Canada Elections Act to talk about the very real challenges I faced in 2015. I raise this because in 2015, tons of foreign students participated in my nomination. The most common form of identification was an Indian passport. People would go to the table to vote, and they would write a Canadian address and use an Indian passport. It was horrible. It undermined the confidence of people who had signed up in good faith as Canadian citizens to participate in our electoral process.
I will note that the Conservative Party was following all the rules and that after Liv Grewal technically “won” the nomination in 2015, the Conservative Party used the Canada Elections Act, existing measures and its own investigative powers as a political entity in Canada to remove that candidate because of what took place at that nomination. Liv Grewal's father, Gurmant Grewal, a former Conservative member of Parliament, had signed up non-Canadians to participate in that nomination.
The principal problem that happened in 2015 still exists. Under a Canadian ID issued by a province, we do not know whether someone is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident or a foreign student. Our identification does not outline that key fact. I know this has happened in all parties. It is not a partisan issue. This is a nomination issue with Elections Canada. It happens in every political party. Even under the many good and positive improvements the Conservative Party has made within the context of the Canada Elections Act, when people go to vote, one cannot determine their citizenship. One cannot determine whether someone is simply a permanent resident or a foreign student. That is a wide gap for abuse in our system.
I will note that at the Conservative convention, we tried to pass a resolution to change this. Unfortunately, it did not pass, because many Conservative members made the rightful point that sometimes a permanent resident's first access to Canadian democracy is that vote in a nomination contest. In many parts of the country, for the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives, the nomination itself is the determining factor in who will be the representative in Ottawa. We have to change the law. We have to eliminate the ability of non-Canadian citizens to choose our elected representatives in nomination contests.
The system is not perfect, but I believe that if Bill C-25 took this necessary step, we would avoid some of the abuse I have seen in my own political party, and that has absolutely taken place in every other political party in Canada. The gaps and the outcomes are too large and too enticing for people not to do it. Frankly, it is not even against the law right now, so why would they not do it? I believe that nomination contests to choose candidates should only be for Canadian citizens. That is not the position of my party. That is the position of Brad Vis, but I feel very strongly about that position.
In 2015, going back to my nomination, I spent a year going around to farms and to gurdwaras. I put myself out there like I had never done before in my life, and I lost. To the Conservative Party's credit, our former lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, recognized there was a problem. Liv Grewal was disqualified. Ironically, the Conservative Party then asked Mike de Jong to run. Mike de Jong was the finance minister for British Columbia at the time. Mike de Jong rejected the invitation from the Conservative Party to be appointed as a candidate, and I was subsequently appointed, three weeks into the writ. I lost that election by 1,000 votes.
When I went back and did a poll-by-poll analysis, the neighbourhoods with the highest concentration of Conservative memberships were getting about 10% Conservative support on the day of the election. Every election since then, I go to Homestead Crescent. In 2015, I got 10% there. In 2019, I got about 30% and it has gone up every election. We cannot deny the fact that there were nefarious political actions that were not just. I know for a fact that people who signed up for the Conservative Party absolutely voted Liberal. I know for a fact that there were many people assigned addresses in West Abbotsford who were not Canadian citizens. That skewed our political data, because we did not have the tools to verify citizenship, as I mentioned earlier.
One of the best ways to improve the integrity of our elections, for all Canadians and for all political parties, is to limit nomination contests solely to Canadians. It is not perfect, but in a country as diverse as ours, with so many foreign pressures and so many diaspora communities that may be influenced by non-state actors in Canada, we have to take that necessary step to protect the integrity of our local races.
I love our democracy. I like the fact that even in challenging times, we can come together and we can agree on improvements in Bill C-25 that would benefit all political parties. That is the right way to go. I hope that all members of Parliament on the procedure and House affairs committee review nomination contests. I know Elections Canada has made a similar recommendation based on stories it has heard from across Canada.
I hope, in good faith, that this bill is amended to include a provision that does not allow for non-Canadians to vote in candidate selections and nominations across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague drew attention to the fact that we have reports showing that there has been foreign interference within our elections. I am curious if he can expand on that. He talked about the what. He talked about what is going on, but I am curious as to his reflections with regard to the importance of this or the consequence of this if the government continues to turn a blind eye.
Mr. Speaker, I will note that Kenny Chiu, a former member of Parliament for Richmond, was the member for one of those ridings in question. Kenny Chiu was originally born in Hong Kong. The PRC targeted Richmond as a result of his statements about the human rights activists in Hong Kong at that time. That is a fact. That was outlined by the Hogue commission as well.
We have the case of Joe Tay and a former member of the Liberal caucus who talked about a bounty on Joe Tay's head in advance of the 2025 election. That individual is no longer in the House of Commons as a result of that.
Those are two very clear examples where the PRC used its influence through organizations like the United Front.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that my colleague referred to himself in the third person in his speech. We cannot use members' names in the House. However, I did not raise that as a point of order. That was a small observation.
On the issue of Bill C‑25, we are talking about foreign interference and the strength of our democratic process. I think that all parties agree that this bill should be studied in committee. There may be some things that need to be amended and we will discuss those.
One important aspect that Bill C‑25 does not address, in terms of foreign interference and the strength of the democratic process, is the public funding of political parties. Mr. Harper eliminated the per-vote subsidy. At the time, it might have been a good idea to do so. However, given what we know today about foreign interference and the problems facing our democratic process, does my colleague not think it would be a good idea to review this no-cost approach? Rather than offering a tax credit, should political parties not be funded based on the number of votes received in an election?
This would help counter foreign interference and strengthen our democratic process.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. However, I do not agree that the public should be subsidizing political parties through a per-vote subsidy. My reason in opposition to that is that we already have very robust Elections Canada returns, which are in fact subsidies already.
I believe our political parties are best served when grassroots members are willing to put forward their own dollars, with the receipt of a generous tax credit, to show that they really believe in what a political party stands for. It takes effort and it takes engagement on the part of all of us in here and all of the candidates who run in every election to gain public support in a way that is often the hardest: getting people to give us money. However, I think it makes our democracy more accountable when there is no broad-based political subsidy. I believe we are best served when we, as individuals, and our political parties have to fight and justify our roles to the Canadian public.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, especially for his personal story about what happened to him in 2015. As he said, nomination contests frequently, for certain parties in certain regions, choose the person who is almost certainly going to win the seat.
I understand what happened in these contests, and I understand the concern, as a result, about having permanent residents participate in the process, but it sounds like in the 2015 nomination there were people other than citizens and permanent residents falsely participating in the process. Can the member envisage a way where permanent residents can continue to participate and we can better protect the system from people who do not have that status?
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In preparation for my speech, I thought about it, but the fact is that in 2015 we could not verify one way or the other. Many of those people might have been permanent residents without a Canadian passport and using their Indian passport. That is a fact, and that absolutely happened.
However, I think what Elections Canada and this place would need to do, if permanent residents were to continue to participate, is update the licensing requirements at the provincial and territorial level to outline one's status in Canada. That is an easy fix to the issue I am addressing, to outline if one is a permanent resident, a Canadian citizen or here on another type of visa. That is indeed one way we could address my very real concern.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do support the member's key point that we should have, by now, acted to create the foreign registry for agents who interfere in Canadian democracy. However, knowing him to be an open-minded and fair-minded member, I would ask him if he would reconsider his opposition to the per-vote subsidy for fair financing, recognizing that it was one of the recommendations in the report from Madam Justice Hogue that in order to counter foreign interference, we should revisit the use of a vote subsidy directed by the citizens casting their ballot and giving a very small amount per year to the party of their choice.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, the Hogue commission does outline that. Again, my personal belief is that democracy is best served when we have to be accountable to the people. The best way to be accountable to Canadian citizens is to convince them that we are good enough that they can open up their chequebook, especially in this time of an affordability crisis, to say, “I believe in you, and I'm going to give you my hard-earned money, because I think you can make a difference in our democracy.” There is no more powerful tool of accountability than one's ability to fundraise one's election and to subsequently win with the support of the grassroots members of our respective communities.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize my hon. colleague's comments on Bill C-25 intersecting with the importance of the implementation of the foreign interference registry. My constituents are very concerned about this delay, noting that, at the same time, they know there are foreign police stations in our country and the government is working on a law enforcement agreement.
How does he see that working together?
Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that Canada does need to improve its relationship with China, but we need to be clear-eyed and realistic about it. Like my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, I was concerned when the government recently signed a new security agreement with the People's Republic of China, even though we have not enacted our foreign registry yet. There would have been much less apprehension about any such type of agreement had the government already fulfilled its duty on Bill C-70, as it said it was going to do over a year ago today.
Again, I encourage the government members to push their minister of democratic institutions to take the steps he said he was going to take and enact the registry today.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. The bill before us seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act. Over the past few months and weeks, we have seen a significant number of MPs change their political allegiance, despite having been elected under a different banner. Does my colleague think that this might be an opportunity to address the issue of floor crossing, given that we are currently seeing people failing to honour the mandate entrusted to them by their constituents?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, while I find floor crossing to be a reprehensible action, I do not believe that this power should be taken away from individual MPs. Call me a Conservative, but I believe that, at the end of the day, we are all accountable to the people who elected us. I know that there are varying positions on this in every political party. Ultimately, I believe in accountability to the people who elected me to stand as Brad Vis, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, in the chamber to represent them and to use my due judgment to make decisions on their behalf.
[Translation]
Before we resume debate, I would like to respond to the question raised by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who asked whether members are allowed to refer to themselves by name or in the third person in the House.
On page 525 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, by Janse and LeBlanc, in paragraph 13.27, entitled “References to Members”, it states:
There is no procedural impediment to members referring to themselves by name. The Speaker will not allow a member to refer to another member by name even if a member's proper name is part of a quotation read in the House by another member. As the Chair has repeatedly noted, a member cannot do indirectly what cannot be done directly.
[English]
In fact, members are allowed to refer to themselves in the third person. The member has not infringed any of the rules and did not do so during his speech or his questions and comments. I am glad I could clarify that for all members.
[Translation]
I am particularly pleased for the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
[English]
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.
[English]
Before I begin, I want to congratulate the previous speaker on having referred to himself by his name more than I have ever heard any other member of Parliament do in any speech, ever. I congratulate him on that.
I am going to be dealing largely with foreign interference. Before I do, I just want to say that I strongly support the strong and free elections act going to committee. There is nothing more important in our society, in a democratic western nation, than having the ability to vote and choose our representatives.
I agree with what the previous speaker said. People vote and choose a person to represent them here in Ottawa, and that person, each and every one of us, is accountable to our electors for the decisions we make during the course of our term. The bill makes it far more sure that people are going to be voting based on real information, not misleading information, not deepfakes and not false information coming from foreign sources.
[Translation]
To me, what is most important is that our elections remain free, fair, transparent and impartial. That is the bedrock of our system. When Canadians step up to the ballot box, they quite reasonably expect to cast their vote without interference, manipulation or threats from inside or outside the country. Across the world, however, election threats continue to grow through sophisticated disinformation campaigns, new kinds of foreign interference and digital security attacks, while technology continues to evolve quickly and bad actors switch up their interference tactics.
Canada is not immune to these global realities. While we are fortunate to have a strong and resilient electoral process supported by the trust of Canadians, we must not take that trust for granted. To maintain that trust, we have a responsibility to adapt and strengthen our electoral safeguards by ensuring that our system remains prepared to defend itself against new and emerging threats in a constantly changing world. With the introduction of this bill, the Government of Canada is taking decisive action to achieve this. This bill takes a forward-looking, evidence-based approach to address the vulnerabilities identified by the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada Elections. The bill aims to improve existing safeguards for our electoral system and introduce new ones so that Canadians can continue to have confidence in the fairness and transparency of our federal elections.
More specifically, this bill recognizes two fundamental truths about modern elections. The first is that democracy must be protected at all times, not just during election periods. The second is that threats to democracy are not confined by geographical borders. The bill tackles these challenges head-on by applying existing and new electoral safeguards at all times, not just during elections, and by ensuring that these safeguards apply wherever in the world such breaches may occur.
[English]
In order to ensure that Canadian elections are protected year-round, not only during the formal election period, the strong and free elections act would apply at all times. This would include current rules against undue foreign influence, specifically attempts by foreign individuals or organizations to influence someone's vote or prevent them from voting at all.
Additionally, the ban against offering or accepting a bribe to influence someone's vote, as well as against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral voices in order to mislead voters, would no longer to limited to the election period. Furthermore, using a broadcasting station outside Canada to influence whether or not an elector votes during an election, and the candidate or registered party they vote for, would also be prohibited at all times.
Together, these measures would help Canada assume a proactive posture, protecting electors and the integrity and fairness of our elections throughout the year, not only once an election is called. Importantly, these measures would also come into force immediately upon royal assent so Canadians could benefit from these additional protections as soon as possible.
As I said before, threats to our democracy can occur at any time, but they can also occur from anywhere in the world. Indeed, aided in part by increasingly inexpensive, sophisticated and easy-to-use technology, malicious actors are not limited by international borders when seeking to undermine confidence in or affect the outcomes of our elections.
The bill would ensure that six new and enhanced rules under the Canada Elections Act would also apply outside Canada. This includes prohibitions against obstruction of the electoral process or an investigation, impersonation, misleading publications, false statements regarding election activities in the voting process, and the unauthorized use of a computer. There would also be new protections for nomination and leadership contests.
Beginning with the issue of obstruction, let me explain further. Under the bill, the prohibition against obstructing the electoral process or obstructing an investigation would apply equally inside and outside Canada, instead of just in Canada as is currently the case. Similarly, the current prohibition against impersonating certain electoral actors would apply outside Canada, as would the ban against misleading publications falsely pretending to be from trusted electoral actors.
Recognizing the severe harm that may be caused by the intentional spread of false or misleading information, the bill would ensure that knowingly making false statements about election activities and the voting process to disrupt the conduct or results of an election would apply, even if the contravention occurs outside Canada.
This includes statements someone might make that they know to be untrue but that they spread anyway in order to affect the conduct or results of an election, such as intentional falsehoods regarding who may vote in the election, for example telling people they cannot vote unless they are aged 35 or over; about the voting registration process, such as falsely telling people they cannot register from outside the country even if they are Canadian citizens; when, where, and how to vote, and we have all seen text messages where people have sent information saying that people are supposed to vote in false locations; who an individual can vote for, for example text messages saying that people are required to vote for a certain candidate; the process to become a candidate; how votes are validated and counted; or, of course, the results of an election.
As is currently the case under the Canada Elections Act, good-faith arguments, opinions or honest mistakes would not be captured by the measures. Additionally, the existing prohibition against the unauthorized use of a computer to affect the results of an election by intercepting information or hacking into a system would also apply to efforts to use a computer to disrupt the conduct of an election inside and outside Canada.
Finally, the bill would apply key protections that help keep our elections and electoral participants safe and secure in nomination contests and leadership contests, recognizing these contests as important democratic events within our broader electoral process. These key protections would include bans against foreign individuals or organizations improperly influencing how or whether someone votes in a contest, offering or accepting a bribe to influence how or whether someone votes in a contest, publishing misleading information falsely claiming to be from a nomination or leadership contest, using deepfakes, and using a computer system to interfere with the conduct or results of a contest.
There is nothing more important than electoral law when we talk about all parties working together. No changes to our process should ever be made if there is not a real consensus in the House of Commons and the Senate. This is where, more than ever, we need to come together at committee, with targeted amendments as needed, to make sure we can all agree on what the best way forward is to keep our system as free and as fair as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his speech.
There is one issue that this bill does not address but that keeps coming up in the House election after election, at least since Stephen Harper's time. I believe that my colleague was a member of Parliament himself then. In any case, I am sure he is familiar with that time. I am talking about the system of political financing that was done away with by the Harper government at the time.
Unfortunately, we see that, sometimes, people with deeper pockets can contribute more to certain political parties. They may even be engaging in some form of influence peddling. That is one of the things this bill seeks to correct. The House leader for the Bloc Québécois proposed eliminating the tax credit for donations to political parties. There would no longer be a tax refund, and the money saved would be used to re-establish a form of political financing, which would mean that the measure would not cost the government anything.
What does my colleague think about that?
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains targeted changes based on recommendations made over the past few years by the various commissions and by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Personally, I believe that tax credits are a good way to encourage contributions and empower political parties. Having said that, I also believe that the study of this bill in committee will be an opportunity to propose amendments and have discussions on these issues.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by wishing a couple of my friends a happy birthday: Sowmya Subramaniam and Nainesh Modi. Their birthdays are coming up in the next couple of weeks. They are fantastic friends and great people.
We all believe in strong and free elections, but we would be naive to ignore the hard truth that many Canadians today carry a healthy skepticism about institutions with respect to accountability and transparency, especially when it comes to elections. We see that skepticism being exploited every day through misinformation and disinformation on social media. We also know from watching other democracies that trust is not lost overnight. It is eroded gradually when safeguards are weakened and clarity is replaced with ambiguity.
In an environment where misinformation spreads rapidly, what concrete measures in the bill would ensure transparency so Canadians can clearly see how elections are administered and protected, and that there are consequences for this not being done?
Mr. Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to the members' friends. It was a very interesting use of the question.
I see nothing worse in society than when members of Parliament, members of the Senate, elected officials or people with roles of responsibility attack the norms of our society, as we see happening around the world. We all have to have trust in our institutions. At the very least, we should all agree that we have trust in our institutions and in our elections.
All the bill could do is criminalize and create civil penalties for people who engage in this misconduct, but we all need to agree that the behaviour needs to be condemned by each and every one of us and by each and every political party, because if Canadian people do not have faith in our own system, we are lost as a country.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that my riding is one of the ones that will have a name change. Cape Spear is one of the most recognized names in the country. It is a beautiful area. However, it represents part of my riding but not all of it, so the riding name is going to change to Cape Spear—Mount Pearl—Paradise, representing the riding more broadly.
The legislation is designed to protect from foreign interference, to protect the privacy of information that political parties collect and to protect against interference, deepfakes and so on, protecting the integrity of our democracy. I am wondering if the member can talk a bit about—
I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience to respond, in 25 seconds or less.
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that I am proud to represent a riding where the name Mount Royal has lasted since 1935, and I do not have any plans to change it.
Everybody's privacy rights are incredibly important, and I am very pleased with this legislation that would protect people's privacy rights, which is very important.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C‑25. During this debate, we have heard a number of interesting, enlightening and constructive speeches from all parties in the House.
This is a very important bill for ensuring that Canadians continue to trust in our democracy. This bill seeks to protect our elections and our rights, and I am proud to speak to it.
The integrity of our electoral system is based on clear, transparent rules that are adapted to the realities of our time. We have had to evolve and adapt to today's technologies, given the changes that have taken place in terms of communications, legislation and so on.
Trust in democracy is very important. For me, this concept is at the heart of our democracy. Democracy is built on trust between citizens and elected representatives. During election campaigns, when we meet with Canadians, we tell them about our policies and those of our party, and we listen to them in order to strengthen our democracy. Our role as members of Parliament is to be the voice of our constituents and stand up for them.
Even before an election, candidates also have a responsibility to present their values, their vision and their commitment to citizens and Canadians. That is what Bill C‑25 is doing.
I believe that democratic dialogue is essential. Fundraising is also a big part of the electoral process. Several MPs have raised issues directly related to the political party financing. It is good to innovate, improve practices and exercise greater caution when it comes to political financing. However, without rigorous oversight, this can open the door to undue influence. We must therefore protect ourselves against foreign interference, particularly with respect to anonymous funding and money that is difficult to trace, such as cryptocurrencies. Unregistered lobby groups are also an issue.
Historically, we have taken steps to protect our democracy. Since the 1970s, the Canada Elections Act has evolved in order to strengthen the integrity of political financing. Since then, important steps have been taken, notably in 2003 when a cap was put on political contributions, priority was given to individual contributions and restrictions were put on the role of corporations and unions. Today, Canadian citizens can make contributions to political parties, but corporations cannot. In 2006, another significant change was whereby only Canadian citizens and permanent residents are allowed to make contributions. These reforms have provided strong protection for our democracy.
Why do we need Bill C‑25? Its purpose is to modernize everything I just explained. It creates rules to deal with new threats that did not exist before. Since I first arrived in the House in 2015, we have seen the growth of fake news and everything else we have now that did not exist back then.
In particular, the bill tackles third-party financing and foreign sources. Several members talked about foreign interference in their speeches and questions today. We are getting more and more concerned about interference by foreign countries. Anonymous contributions can be difficult to detect when things like cryptocurrency, which I talked about earlier, and prepaid cards are used.
Regulations for third parties are essential too. Third parties play an active role in electoral debates even though they themselves are not candidates. The point is that their financing must be just as transparent as political party financing.
Regulating third parties is also very important. They actively participate in election debates without being candidates themselves. It is essential that their funding be as transparent as that of political parties. The bill emphasizes this point. It ensures that only Canadian citizens and permanent residents can make contributions. Contributions from corporations, unions, and associations are prohibited. There is also an obligation to disclose the source of funds and to file financial statements. When you get into politics, you quickly learn that when you run an election campaign with an official agent and a campaign manager, you have to be squeaky clean. You must be transparent. The sources of donations must be carefully verified.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the volunteers and official agents who support all the candidates in every riding across Canada. They do an outstanding job and incredible work for our democracy. They apply the law to ensure transparency with respect to contributions and ensure sound financial management during election campaigns. Candidates are required to submit their financial statements, which ensures transparency and fairness for everyone.
I want to say a quick word about cryptocurrency, or what I refer to as “opaque contributions”, because they are invisible. They are very hard to trace. The source of these donations has to be traced virtually. Anything virtual is harder to trace than something tangible, such as a cheque with photocopies taken of both sides. It is absolutely essential that legislation be passed to protect us in that regard. The anonymous and volatile nature of cryptocurrencies poses a significant risk to electoral integrity. The bill therefore prohibits political contributions made in cryptocurrency. This prevents money laundering. It prevents the transfer of foreign funds that can be easily transferred electronically and it prevents anonymous contributions. This represents a shift to a more modern approach, one that reflects our current reality in 2026.
Since we are talking today about protecting our constituents and their integrity, it is also important to talk about fair representation for our constituents, which is the other aspect of this bill. A strong democracy depends on territorial representation that accurately reflects the reality on the ground and the circumstances faced by local communities. Electoral redistribution has had a significant impact on my riding, which now includes three RCMs.
I inherited an RCM called Collines-de-l'Outaouais. It is an RCM I already knew very well, and I had the opportunity to spend time with its residents during the election campaign. In fact, I wanted to include them. I made a commitment to certain associations and individuals to include them in the new name of my riding, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation. It now encompasses three RCMs. There is the Argenteuil RCM on the east side, the Papineau RCM in the centre, and the Collines-de-l'Outaouais RCM. This riding encompasses approximately 41 municipalities across 5,600 square kilometres. I can say that it is important to include Collines-de-l'Outaouais.
The current name, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, does not adequately reflect this new reality. The new name will be Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines. I hope it is adopted in the House so that I can share the good news with my constituents. On behalf of my riding, I would like to say that this is not merely an administrative detail, as it concerns the collective identity of the people who live there. It is important to me to accurately reflect the communities that make up the region. The people of Collines-de-l'Outaouais need to be able to identify with their federal representation, and the people of Papineau also need to see their region fully recognized. That is why my riding should be renamed Argenteuil—Papineau—Des Collines.
Mr. Speaker, I support any initiative that seeks to strengthen our democracy and our electoral system. We agree on the importance of providing a framework for the longest ballot committee by ensuring that an official agent may represent only one candidate per election. However, is there a risk that some people may act as a fake official agent on paper in order to circumvent this rule?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his fluent and excellent French. My colleagues know that, in my speech, I emphasized the importance of the responsibility of official agents. For quite some time now, every candidate should have had a recognized official agent. However, that comes with a requirement to demonstrate that the person is qualified and authorized. That comes with responsibilities. I am certain that, given the way the bill is drafted right now, we will avoid having straw men or imposters posing as official agents for the candidates.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation for acknowledging in his speech that there is sometimes a risk of influence peddling in the political fundraising process that could be problematic and that it could even go so far as to threaten the integrity of government decisions or, at the very least, the electoral process. In that context, I want to mention that my colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where he once accused me of fundraising through the Bloc Québécois website when I was speaking out against Driver Inc. However, we eventually learned from the media that the shoe was on the other foot. It was the Liberal Party that allegedly received tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars from owners of Driver Inc. companies.
I would like to know whether my colleague intends to apologize to me for his false accusations and whether he is concerned about what is happening in his party, namely that people are trying to influence policies and that this is not being done for the good of the public.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that we have the most rigorous systems in place for political funding and election campaign financing. During an election campaign, it is our responsibility, when appointing an official agent, to comply with the rules and to abide by the law. I have been here since 2015, abiding by the law with no missteps whatsoever despite all the funding I have received since 2015. I aim to set an example in the House.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest priorities we have as parliamentarians is safeguarding our democracy. Without free and fair elections with voters able to choose for themselves whom to support, what we do here and say is meaningless. Ensuring that the way we conduct elections is free from malicious control is one of the most important things we can do. Protecting democratic principles is not a partisan issue. Those on the left, those on the right and those in between are in agreement. We trust people to make the right choice as long as they have the opportunity to do so in a setting where the influence of those with bad intent has been lessened. I say lessened because, even with our best efforts, there are always going to be those, especially in foreign governments, who are going to attempt to interfere with our political electoral process. Governments elsewhere may have a different agenda from Canada's. They will naturally want, if possible, to shape our way of thinking. Dealing with those attempts is one of the reasons for Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.
Before I forget, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.
Put simply, this bill would, among other things, establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including, in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, accepting or offering a bribe, unauthorized use of a computer and making or publishing false or misleading information respecting elections and the candidate nomination process. The bill would establish new prohibitions in relation to voting in a nomination contest or leadership contest; prohibit the acceptance or use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties, including from anonymous sources; and it would provide for new requirements relating to political parties' policies for the protection of personal information.
Combatting foreign interference has become a bigger challenge in recent years as so many of us get our information online. Disinformation and misinformation run rampant. Truth is hard to find. We can be subtly shaped without even realizing it. Of course, we have always been subject to foreign influence. Fifty years ago, it was the prevalence of American television programming that was a major concern. Influencing the culture and shifting it to our direction is something we need to be aware of, but it is the effort of foreign governments, not cultural influencers, that is what we are looking at with this legislation; though sometimes, admittedly, governments can be behind the cultural influencers. We have had inquiries. The results have been, in a way, frustrating. We know that there have been attempts at foreign interference in our elections and our nomination contests, perhaps even in the leadership races. However, we do not know with any certainty whether the interference has changed the outcome of the results of any particular riding. We can say, though, that it was the intent to do so.
Conservatives have long called for the strengthening of protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests. It is good to see that Bill C-25 would address this issue. It is good to see that this legislation would change the Canada Elections Act respecting nomination contests and leadership contests. It makes sense to prohibit foreigners and foreign entities from unduly influencing an elector to vote or to refrain from voting in a nomination or leadership contest. We want Canadians to make their choices without interference from foreign capitals.
It also makes sense to prohibit persons and entities from selling advertising space to a foreign entity to transmit a message to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for a particular nomination contestant or leadership contestant. The only real question is why we have not done this sooner. Given all that we have heard about foreign interference in the past few years, I am surprised that the government has not acted with more speed on this matter.
I am also surprised that we had not previously thought about the necessity of prohibiting people from offering a bribe to influence how a person votes in a nomination or leadership contest. We already make it an offence to offer or accept a bribe during an election, so it makes sense that we extend this to the nomination and leadership contests that are such an important part of our democracy.
Like all members in the House, I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents on issues of the day. A lot of those letters and emails are complaints about Liberal policies. I understand that. I have a few complaints about Liberal policies myself. Too often, though, the complaints are based on wild theories circulating on the Internet that have no basis in truth. Misinformation and disinformation is running rampant. I am not sure that we will ever be able to eliminate it, but we can try.
The bill would create a new offence for making or publishing, with the intention of affecting the results or disrupting the conduct of an election, a statement that they know is false or misleading. That makes sense to me. Truth is important. Those who are lying for political gain need to be exposed and punished.
The bill would also bring in the “unauthorized use of a computer” offence to include “disrupting the conduct of an election” as opposed to solely affecting the results of an election. That, to me, is a better reflection of reality and perhaps easier to prove.
Expanding the scope to what is captured as a false or misleading publication and impersonation to include AI and deepfakes also makes sense. One can find both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition online, along with Hollywood celebrities, pushing various get-rich-quick schemes. We know those are fake, but they can be convincing. As artificial intelligence software improves, it will get even harder to spot the difference between real and fake.
During an election campaign, these deepfake images could be used for political advantage. It is important for the integrity of the election process to clamp down on them. As politicians, we need to make sure that our own houses are in order. We need to adhere to the highest standards, not just for public confidence in the process, but because it is the right thing to do.
Requiring political parties to establish a more comprehensive policy for the protection of personal information than is currently provided for under the act is important. The public needs to see that we are holding ourselves to the highest standards. That means working harder to safeguard electors' personal information under the party's control and making sure that we protect the privacy of those whose information we hold. We need to lead by example.
As parliamentarians, it is vital that we address these issues. We want free and fair elections and a democracy that is the envy the world, not one riddled with foreign interference.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing. I, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, apologize for misinterpreting the Standing Orders earlier today during debate. I wanted to make a formal apology. Members are allowed to refer to themselves in the third person but may not name other members when speaking about them.
I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him on different committees. I think we have reached a consensus of sorts on Bill C‑25 in that we would all like it to be studied it in committee. We want our democratic process to be made even stronger and more impervious to threats of foreign interference.
That said, Bill C‑25 may be missing one thing: public funding for political parties. I am raising the matter again. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding should be based on votes, not on donor contributions, because that would make it easier to protect against foreign interference.
What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on several committees.
We are talking about international interference in Canadian politics, and here we are trying to interfere with how Canadians want to donate and which party they choose to support. I disagree with the hon. member on that point. The bill is going to committee, and at committee there will be room for more suggestions and recommendations that could get through. In my opinion, we are trying to prevent interference in our electoral system from outside and here we are interfering with the way Canadians support political parties on the inside. I think there is a contradiction there.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our legislative framework needs to evolve whenever new issues arise.
We see that with Bill C‑25, for which there is a bit of consensus in the House, based on what I am hearing. In particular, I am thinking of the issues of addressing foreign interference, strengthening the rules for nominations, implementing stricter rules on political fundraising and preventing disruptive activities when it comes to protecting elections. One example is also the longest ballot committee, which we have seen in action in various by-elections and general elections in recent years.
I want to ask my colleague why we should review the Canada Elections Act on a regular basis and ensure that we are addressing emerging issues and responding to them in a collaborative way, as we are doing now.
I also want my colleague to clarify whether he agrees that the bill is almost ready to go to committee so that we can continue studying it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say it is too late that the government brought this up after four elections. I think this is very necessary to make sure that we have a perfect, very transparent electoral process. I believe the bill will go to committee. It has to go to committee, where it will be studied more and examined better to get the best results out of it.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague had to say today specifically around something my constituents are concerned about, as are his, which is the delay in the implementation of the foreign interference registry, which is really important, as we have heard today, to make this bill as efficient and good as possible. I would like him to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is delayed in bringing this forward and yet has already moved forward with the law enforcement agreement with China, which causes the kind of concern he mentioned in his speech.
Mr. Speaker, not even a week goes by that I do not hear from my constituents about this issue. Canadians are very concerned about international interference in our elections. There were studies and there were efforts to get this through, but it has not been implemented. The government has not moved on it. We hope that with this bill, it will get more serious and act in a responsible way to get this through, because we cannot afford any more interference in our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, the sorcerer's apprentice scene from Fantasia is my mother's favourite. The apprentice arrives, gains access to powerful tools and tries to harness them to make his work easier. He enchants a broom to carry water. At first, it works. The buckets fill and the work is done for him. Then it does not stop. The water keeps pouring. He tries to fix it, but he cannot undo the spell. In panic, he chops the broom in two, only to create more brooms, more buckets and more water. What began as a clever solution quickly becomes something he cannot control and the room begins to flood.
I have been thinking about that story as we debate Bill C-25 because there are parts in this bill that respond to the concerns I hear in my communities. Conservatives have long called for measures to deter abuses like the longest ballot campaigns. We have called for stronger protections against foreign interference, including in leadership and nomination contests. The changes in Bill C-25 start to address the concerns that we have raised around foreign money influencing Canadian elections, and we support these changes. There are a few amendments we think would be prudent: Ballot boxes should be securely stored when polling stations are closed, under triple lock and key. The scope of the expanded offence of making false statements about the results of an election could be clearer. The financial penalties proposed in the bill could be higher.
If we were in the early stages of the sorcerer's apprentice where the brooms were doing their jobs and the buckets were filling as intended, those changes might be enough to restore Canadians' faith in our institutions, but that is not where we are. In the wake of floor crossings and growing regional alienation, there are concerns about fairness in how resources are distributed and a rising sense that decisions are being made behind closed doors for the personal gain of those doing the deciding. For some Canadians, the brooms are everywhere, the buckets are overflowing, and those Canadians are rapidly losing confidence.
In British Columbia, people notice when elections are called before our polls have even closed. They notice when our tax dollars flow east, but do not come back to fund our infrastructure, our hospitals and our communities. With the recent floor crossings, a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are asking me why they should bother voting.
When people start questioning whether their vote matters, we should all take notice because that is not frustration with a single policy or a single party. It is indicative of something deeper, a feeling that their voice no longer carries weight, that the outcome is predetermined elsewhere, that our democracy is not quite functioning as it should. It may be a minority of voices at this point, but once that feeling takes hold, it is very difficult to reverse. People do not disengage all at once. They disengage step by step. First, they question. Then, they doubt. Eventually, they go quiet and stop participating altogether.
This is not a problem we can regulate away. It is a problem we have to address through how we conduct ourselves as a democracy. In that context, Bill C-25 does some very valuable tinkering around the edges, but it fails to truly meet the moment that we are in.
I have spoken to many of these concerned Canadians. The gap between this Parliament and those agnostics is fundamentally one of trust: trust that decision-makers really see their struggles and understand their hopes and dreams, trust that ministers will do their best to serve Canadians and not enrich themselves along the way. Trust that the person they elected is still who they said they were when they were asking for their vote.
If we are, as the Prime Minister has said, living through a moment of rupture, vulnerable to the whims of a hostile America, then this is a time when Canada needs its best ideas to rise to the top. That does not happen by accident. It happens when ideas are tested, challenged and improved upon through open and rigorous debate. An environment where opposition questions are treated as obstruction is not one where strong ideas can emerge. It is one where the weak ideas go untested. When questions are discouraged, when those who ask them are mocked in this chamber, when scrutiny is dismissed, we materially increase the risk of getting it wrong.
It is in the national interest to have an opposition that can ask hard questions. It is nation building to stress-test policy proposals in order to find gaps, unintended consequences and missed opportunities. That is how policies are strengthened. That is how we avoid costly mistakes. That is how we move our country forward.
The moment that we accept the frame that our society is divided into two enemy camps, one virtuous and one irredeemably wrong, our society loses something that is mission-critical. Probing, questioning and challenging are what a healthy democracy depends on. In moments like this, where we need to find and embrace our best ideas, we should be making more room for opposition and questioning, not less. Canada's success depends on every member of this House being able to serve their constituents fully, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. That is how we truly arrive at the best ideas. It is not by protecting them from criticism, but by putting them under pressure and seeing what holds.
Former Prime Minister Diefenbaker was known for the sentiment that there is no bad seat in the House of Commons. Every seat in this place carries equal responsibility and legitimacy, regardless of whether its member sits in government or opposition. This week, there is a much-needed reminder that MPs are here to put Canada first, not to seek power for themselves. A government that serves only the ridings it holds weakens the country and undermines our collective purpose. It divides Canadians and pits region against region. A system that discourages questioning weakens its ability to correct itself.
In Canada today, a new Prime Minister has arrived on the scene much like the sorcerer's apprentice. He has gained access to powerful tools, and I will concede that he has harnessed them effectively to achieve the majority government that he insists will make his work easier. He has enchanted a certain demographic, the media and some floor-crossers to wield brooms, fill buckets and carry water.
However, there are lessons to be learned from the sorcerer's apprentice to ensure the water does not turn into a flood and to stem the tide of disappointment that Canadians are expressing about behaviour in this place. Any MP who cannot effectively represent their riding from any seat in this House has no business being here. Any government that requires MPs to cross the floor to provide for their ridings is one that undermines the foundations of democracy and should be summarily dispatched at the ballot box.
I implore the Prime Minister to recognize these two simple principles: embrace the value of the opposition, especially in this moment, and answer the questions we ask in question period. Stop trying to enchant the brooms and the buckets and be a government that makes space for all Canadians, regardless of the colour of their party banner. If we do that, the best ideas will rise to the top and we will be able to move this country forward.
We need the government to work with us to strengthen Bill C-25 in committee. If the government does that, then Bill C-25 might help restore Canadians' faith in our system. It might help bring down the temperature and rebuild trust. However, if it does not, we should not be surprised if the brooms and the buckets keep multiplying and the water keeps rising until the floods are upon us.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that excellent speech. We were just at the procedure and House affairs committee where we were discussing civic resilience, a study that is currently under way there.
In the theme of Bill C-25 and the study that is ongoing at PROC about civic resilience, what does it mean to only have one set of voices and one set of ideas being pushed? What kind of message does that send to Canadians who might disagree? What kind of health does that promote within our Canadian society?
Mr. Speaker, when I knock on doors and I talk to people in my community, there is a sentiment that generally gets all the heads nodding. It is the idea that Ottawa feels very far away right now from those out on the west coast on Vancouver Island. We feel disconnected in a lot of ways from the black box that happens in Ottawa.
There was a point made in committee this morning, which was the idea that civic resilience is something that bridges the distance between the people and government. There is a lesson that comes out of this and I would urge the government, I would urge the House, to make room for those voices and to spend more time explaining to Canadians what we are doing in this place and why. I think that, along with the changes being proposed in Bill C-25, would go a long way to gaining support.
Mr. Speaker, the biggest question I have been asked over the last couple of weeks, and years, when it comes to democracy is with respect to the longest ballot committee. That is something that has weighed on people. It has made it very difficult for them to cast their ballot in a proper way. Some ballots have been a metre long. Therefore, I would ask my colleague if this bill addresses that issue.
Also, we cannot discuss democracy right now without discussing members crossing the floor. People have been losing faith in our democracy when they vote for a person from a particular party and then that person crosses the floor. I think it is a disservice to the people who sent them to Ottawa. I ask my colleague to comment on that as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, because it highlights where we are heading and what we still need to do.
Bill C-25 addresses the issue of the longest ballot in a number of ways. However, the truth is that it does not matter how many spots are on a ballot or how short it is if the people who are casting their vote do not have confidence that the House will respect their choice and enable the member they elect to serve from any seat in the House and provide for their riding in all circumstances. That is where I think we have work to do. I look forward to working with the government to restore that confidence in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was the one who was speaking, I would like to take this opportunity to note that they were serving Nanaimo bars in the lobby today. I do not know whether this is a coincidence or a personal request.
All joking aside, I have a question for my colleague. We are talking about democracy today, which is important. We are all here to represent our constituents. We have a role in this democracy, and it is a role entrusted to us by our constituents. Recently, there have been a significant number of people crossing the floor, people who have moved from the Conservative benches to the Liberal benches, even though that is not the mandate given to them by their constituents.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks of people who abandon the mandate given to them by the people who vote for them.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this excellent question.
[English]
It is a difficult thing to see someone we have spoken to and shared lots of good conversations and ideas with decide they are no longer on our team. That said, it is one of the fundamental issues in our democracy today. We are living in a world where people are trying to create a distance that does not always exist. We have a lot in common. We need to work together. We need to have every seat in this House matter.
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, to speak in strong support of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.
Before I speak to the details of the bill, I want to step back and talk about the moment we are living in. Around the world, democracy is under pressure, authoritarian regimes are growing bolder, independent journalism is being squeezed, trust in public institutions is being deliberately undermined and the information environment that citizens rely on to make free and informed choices is being polluted by foreign states, domestic bad actors and the rapid, unregulated power of artificial intelligence.
This is not a distant or theoretical concern. In January of this year, our own Prime Minister stood at the World Economic Forum in Davos and told the world that we are in the midst of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction, and the beginning of a harsh reality”. He reminded us that the multilateral institutions that middle powers like Canada have relied on for decades are under strain, and he called on countries like ours to build our strength at home and to act together.
Democracy does not sustain itself. It depends on strong institutions, an independent justice system, the rule of law, a political system that citizens trust enough to peacefully choose who leads them, and access to independent, fact-based journalism. Every single one of those pillars is under pressure today, and Bill C-25 is part of how Canada is responding.
Let me be clear. The bill was not written in a vacuum. It responds directly to the recommendations of the public inquiry into foreign interference, led by the hon. Marie-Josée Hogue; recommendations from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer; and recommendations from the commissioner of Canada Elections. It also builds on the work that was introduced in the last Parliament through Bill C-65. I want to commend our federal government, in particular our minister responsible for democratic institutions, for bringing the legislation forward and for working across party lines to build as much consensus as possible. Our democracy belongs to every Canadian. The laws that protect it should rise above partisanship whenever possible.
Now let me turn to what Justice Hogue actually told us. After a 16-month inquiry, more than 150 witnesses and a seven-volume final report, Justice Hogue confirmed that foreign interference in Canadian democracy is real. She documented attempts by hostile foreign states, most prominently the People's Republic of China and India, to interfere at the riding level in our 2019 and 2021 elections. Justice Hogue went further. She pointed to something she considered even more dangerous than the traditional tools of foreign interference. In her own words, not mine, “information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy. It is an existential threat.”
This is not a line from social media; it is the considered conclusion of a then sitting justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, after a year and a half of evidence. She warned us that if we do not address misinformation and disinformation, they have the power to distort our discourse, to change our views and to reshape our society. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, known as NSICOP, which includes members of every recognized party in this place, has reached similar conclusions. NSICOP has documented disinformation as a central tactic used by hostile foreign actors against Canada, and NSICOP has been clear that foreign interference in even one riding is one riding too many.
I want to share one more piece of context with the House. I have the enormously great pleasure of serving as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In that role, I meet regularly with parliamentarians from across the alliance, and I can tell the House that disinformation and hybrid threats come up in virtually every single conversation we have.
Last year at the 71st annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana, I had the opportunity to ask the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, directly about the application of article 5 in the context of hybrid warfare and cyberwarfare, because these are not abstract questions for our allies. Russia, the People's Republic of China, Iran and North Korea are running sophisticated hybrid campaigns against democracies right now, with disinformation, cyber-attacks and political interference. NATO itself calls these campaigns attempts to “sow doubt in the minds of target populations [and] to destabilise and undermine societies.”
Our NATO allies are asking us to do more, and the bill would be Canada's doing more. What would Bill C-25 actually do?
First, it would protect the ballot itself. It would create a new offence for intentionally spreading false information about the voting process to disrupt an election. It would criminalize tampering with the computer systems that run our elections. For the first time, it would criminalize digital impersonation and the use of AI-generated deepfakes to impersonate candidates, the Chief Electoral Officer or other election officials. In an era when a convincing fake video can be produced in minutes and shared with millions of people in hours, this protection is long overdue.
Second, it would close the doors on foreign and dark money. It would prohibit anonymous and untraceable contributions, including cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards and money orders. It would strengthen the rules on third parties. It would prevent foreign entities from funnelling money into our politics through Canadian intermediaries. Critically, it would extend these protections to nomination and leadership contests, which Justice Hogue identified as real points of vulnerability.
Third, it would give the commissioner of Elections Canada enforcement tools she has asked for: higher penalties, the power to summon witnesses and compel evidence without clogging up our courts, the ability to co-operate with international partners, and a specific requirement that the commissioner consider foreign interference when determining penalties. These are tools our election watchdog needs, and experts have been calling for them for years.
Fourth, the bill would protect candidates and election workers themselves, because threats to our democracy are not abstract. They are directed at real people, including candidates, returning officers and their families, who increasingly face harassment and intimidation.
Fifth, it would finally establish a comprehensive privacy regime for federal political parties. This has been recommended for years by the Privacy Commissioner and by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it is time we got it done.
I want to be clear with the House. The bill is a necessary step but not the final step. Justice Hogue has called for a dedicated body to monitor disinformation. The Chief Electoral Officer has called for transparency labels on AI-generated election content. Our NATO allies are asking us to build whole-of-society resilience that includes media literacy, support for independent journalism, accountability for platforms, and deeper international co-operation. We will need to keep going. We will need to keep updating our laws as the threats evolve. We will need to keep doing this together, across party lines, because the adversaries trying to weaken Canadian democracy do not care which party any of us belongs to. They want to weaken us all.
I commend our government for bringing forward Bill C-25. I urge every member of the House, from every party, to support it. I urge every one of us to recognize that defending Canadian democracy is not a one-time vote. It is an ongoing responsibility, one that this generation of parliamentarians has been asked to carry. Our democracy is strong, but it is not invulnerable. Canada is worth protecting. Our democracy is worth protecting. The residents of Davenport and of every riding in the country are counting on us to do exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about Madam Justice Hogue, who did identify the PRC as the biggest foreign interference threat. Indeed the Prime Minister, last year, rightly acknowledged that Beijing posed the biggest security threat to Canada.
In the face of foreign interference activities, how does the member square the conclusions of Madam Justice Hogue and the statement of the Prime Minister with the Prime Minister's deal with Beijing to strike a co-operation agreement on matters of law enforcement with Canada's biggest national security threat?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his participation in providing some input into Bill C-25. I think it is enormously important that we work across party lines.
I am going to focus on the bill. The government is taking action to ensure that Canadians continue to have confidence in the integrity of our elections, and to further strengthen our democratic institutions in response to the rising threats being faced by countries around the world. This is just one of the many steps we need to be taking. There are about 29 changes being proposed in Bill C-25. We have more to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech.
She clearly illustrated how this bill strengthens our election laws. Our election system in Canada is fair and Canadians have confidence in it. To maintain that confidence, our legislative framework must evolve in response to the concerns of the day.
For example, there is a proposal to introduce a new ban on impersonation using deepfakes, or in other words, the use of artificial intelligence to create fake images and make it appear as though a person has said or done something, even though the image is not of the actual person. This type of disinformation can be harmful to democracy.
I invite my colleague to explain why it is so important to take these modern issues into account when updating our election laws.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one of the things about the Canada Elections Act is that we have done a fairly good job over time of making sure that we are constantly updating it to meet the threats of the moment. Deepfakes are definitely one of the threats of the moment. I am very pleased that our minister responsible for democratic institutions has acted fast and has worked in coordination across party lines to actually put some protections in the new bill in order for us to address this new threat. We need to continue to be vigilant and to be aware of the new threats coming our way, so we can continue to make sure we are protecting our elections and democracy here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague just mentioned protecting democracy. I would like to hear what her views are on a member's crossing the floor and abandoning 53% of the vote in her riding.
Mr. Speaker, as that has nothing to do with Bill C-25, which is before us right now, I will give a very general comment. Floor crossing has happened on both sides of the bench, and I think it has been part of our parliamentary tradition.
Mr. Speaker, one recommendation from Madam Justice Hogue that is not in Bill C-25 to confront foreign interference but that I would love to see in Bill C-25, was to restore the political finance reforms that were introduced originally by a former prime minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien.
Does my friend from Davenport agree that the bill would be strengthened if we were to bring back the per-vote subsidy that also encouraged voters to vote for the party of their choice even in ridings that were regarded as safe for another party?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed right. The per-vote subsidy, as the main political party funding reform, is not in the bill. In the bill, we focus on political financing. We are trying to prevent foreign and dark money from getting into our political system.
As I mentioned in my speech, we have many opportunities to continue to improve our democracy, to continue to improve the Canada Elections Act, to continue to fight and to put in tools and measures that would counter disinformation and misinformation. I mentioned a number of them in my speech, and I look forward to the work ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we are very concerned about foreign interference, specifically in our Elections Act, so I would like the member to explain why the Liberals have delayed the implementation of the foreign interference registry.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that we have started to incorporate a number of the recommendations that Justice Hogue made in the foreign interference report. It may not all be in the bill, but this is first reading. This bill will go to committee, and there will be an opportunity to propose and suggest additional amendments or additions. There is also an opportunity, in the near future, to introduce another bill and make more reforms moving forward, but it is the intention of our government to implement all the recommendations from Justice Hogue.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Shipping in Hamilton
Mr. Speaker, I rise to share exciting news for Hamilton. On April 1, I was proud to be joined by the Secretary of State for Sport and my Hamilton colleagues, along with representatives from Canada Border Services Agency, to announce that the CBSA has approved in principle a new licence for the Hamilton Container Terminal to operate a rail sufferance warehouse.
For the first time, cargo arriving by ship can be processed right in Hamilton instead of being trucked to Toronto or Brampton. This means fewer trucks on our roads, less congestion and lower emissions. It also means faster processing, lower transportation costs and more economic activity staying in our city, supporting local jobs and helping keep costs down for Hamilton families. I would like to thank the Minister of Public Safety for his leadership in helping make this possible. This is how our government is building Canada strong.
Industry
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand up for sectors of the Chatham-Kent—Leamington economy that are vital to all of Canada: the steel, aluminum and mould-making industries. These sectors support over 100,000 Canadian jobs and form the backbone of the infrastructure we rely on every day, such as bridges, hospitals, vehicle parts and transit systems, yet today they are under immediate threat. After a year of trade turbulence, business uncertainty is critically high as unfairly traded imports undercut Canadian producers. U.S. tariffs, in some cases reaching as high as 4,000%, are devastating our mould-makers, forcing companies to hold shipments and putting thousands of jobs at immediate risk.
While the Liberals did focus on upstream steel and aluminum production, they took far too long to acknowledge the downstream industries such as the fabricators, processors and manufacturers who actually turn those materials into the products Canadians depend upon. If they truly believe in building Canada, why are they failing to stand up for the very industries and workers who literally make that possible?
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, for generations, Canada has been a place where people come to build a better life. During my last constituency week, I had the privilege of attending the grand opening of the Oshawa Clarington Welcome Centre and Durham Resettlement Assistance Program House, both of which provide essential settlement services to newcomers in our region. Canada's immigration system has always been about more than just arrivals; it is about helping newcomers build a life, contribute to our communities and strengthen our economy. In recent years, we have seen many pressures that have tested the limits of that system.
This is why I am proud our government is restoring integrity to the immigration system by bringing down levels to be sustainable, while improving the immigration process and ensuring people get jobs in the fields where their skills are really needed. With every successful settlement journey, we are building a stronger Canada for everyone. This is how we fulfill the promise of Canada.
[Translation]
Franco-Ontarian Women's Contributions
Mr. Speaker, today, I want to highlight the important work of Franco-Ontarian women, whose contributions are evident across the province. In particular, I want to recognize Michèle Minor‑Corriveau, a passionate Laurentian University professor who has dedicated her career to educating female francophone students in northern Ontario.
This Saturday, I will be at Soirée Saphir, an event that celebrates the work and leadership of Franco-Ontarian women. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish the Centre Victoria pour femmes good luck. The Centre Victoria is an organization in my riding that is one of this year's finalists for its essential work with francophone women affected by gender-based violence.
Hon. Member for La Prairie—Atateken
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to some important news that went largely unnoticed last week. In Quebec, the regulations governing boxing matches have just been strengthened following some investigative journalism into the tragic death of Mexican boxer Jeanette Guadalupe Zacarias Zapata.
At the heart of this heightened awareness is the rigorous, impartial and essential work of a coroner. There are 101 coroners in Quebec, men and women who are dedicated to making our lives safer. In this case, the coroner helped not only to bring the truth to light, but also, and more importantly, to better protect the lives of all boxers in Quebec. This individual is a physician by profession who has dedicated his life to caring for patients here and around the world. He has always been driven by a single goal, and that is to preserve human life.
Today, I want to acknowledge the work of someone who is often unassuming but whose impact is immense, namely the member for La Prairie—Atateken, who is my colleague and friend.
Lac‑Mégantic Sauro
Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride in Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière that I rise today to celebrate the victory of the Lac‑Mégantic Sauro, who won the regional hockey league championship on Sunday.
Their victory was about more than just the final score. It was about heart, determination and team spirit. In this deciding game, the players kept their cool under pressure and played with indomitable spirit in front of an electric crowd. They represented the entire community with honour and passion.
I want to acknowledge the outstanding work of head coach Alain Bisson, his assistants Keven Jacques and Samuel Nolette, general manager Marco Jacques and president Serge Côté, as well as all the staff and the many volunteers who contribute to the organization's success behind the scenes. Last but not least, I want to recognize the fans who showed up to support the team throughout the season.
Congratulations to the Sauro on this historic and well-deserved championship.
[English]
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 44th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter stands as one of the strongest pillars of human rights protection, guaranteeing our fundamental freedoms and protecting the rights of all Canadians. The charter is a profoundly Canadian document. Its impact goes beyond our borders, inspiring and providing expertise to nations around the world, allowing Canada to lead by example.
I would also like to recognize prime ministers Trudeau and Chrétien for their roles in achieving this landmark in Canadian history and for carrying this legacy forward by advancing equal rights, including the legalization of same-sex marriage, ensuring that the promise of the charter applies to all Canadians.
We believe that the charter works because it truly represents us, the Canadian people, and it stands the test of time. Let us recommit to these principles, ensuring that the charter continues to serve Canadians for generations to come.
Retirement Congratulations
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true icon of Canadian sport and broadcasting and the pride of Unionville, Joe Bowen. For more than four decades, Joe Bowen has been the voice of the Toronto Maple Leafs, bringing passion, professionalism and an unmistakable love of the game to fans from coast to coast.
Through thrilling victories and heartbreaking losses, Joe made us feel every moment, from last-second goals to unforgettable playoff runs, with a sincerity that connected generations of listeners and resulted in more than a few bent steering wheels in Leafs nation. His calls were never about hype. They were about respect for the game, for the players and for the fans who gathered around radios and televisions season after season. “Holy mackinaw” became more than a catchphrase. It became part of our national hockey culture.
As Joe Bowen closes this remarkable chapter of his career, we thank him for the memories, the emotion and a voice that helped define a love for hockey in Canada. Thanks for everything, Joe, and holy mackinaw, enjoy retirement.
[Translation]
Hockey Playoffs
Mr. Speaker, go Habs, go! Spring is well and truly here because our Canadiens are in the playoffs.
It has been a long time since their nickname, “Les Glorieux”, the glorious ones, has been so well-deserved. That is because, this year, the Canadiens have a new Maurice Richard in Cole Caufield, our first 50-goal scorer since Stéphane Richer in 1989–1990. I was five years old back then. This year, the Canadiens also have a 100-point scorer: our captain, Nick Suzuki. He is only the fifth in over a century of hockey in Montreal. What can we say about Juraj Slafkovský, who has just broken the 30-goal mark? I bet that is just the beginning for this powerhouse. Did I mention that Lane Hutson is having the third-best season in the history of the Habs for a defenceman? Let us not forget Jakub Dobes, who is having a better rookie season than even Carey Price or Patrick Roy did.
It will not be easy against the Tampa Bay Lightning, but our young guns are ready to fight, and it feels like the cup is within reach.
[English]
Organ and Tissue Donation
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Green Shirt Day, which was last week, as well as National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week and Ontario's Be a Donor Month, a time when Canadians come together to honour donors, their families and the gift of life that organ and tissue donation makes possible.
Throughout Canada, thousands of people are waiting for a transplant that could dramatically improve or even save their lives. Registering as a donor is one of the most powerful acts of generosity a person can make. A member of our community in Georgetown is currently waiting for a life-saving living liver donor. I met with Jason McArthur and his wife Angela to learn more about living donors and the gift of life those donors give to people like Jason when they choose to share a part of themselves.
I encourage all Canadians to learn more, have conversations with loved ones and register as organ and tissue donors. Together, we can give hope and the gift of life to those who need it most.
Sergei Magnitsky Legislation
Mr. Speaker, as Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine drags on into its fourth year, billions of dollars in Russian state assets are collecting dust in Canada while Ukraine bleeds. The government talks about standing with Ukraine, and the Liberals are good at writing cheques using Canadian taxpayer dollars, but they will not touch the 23 billion dollars' worth of frozen Russian assets right here in Canada. These are assets that belong to the regime in Moscow waging this illegal war.
Legal experts, security analysts and human rights lawyers agree that Canada can and should forfeit these frozen Russian assets and use them to support Ukraine's defence and reconstruction. This is why I am calling on the government to quickly pass my private member's bill, Bill C-219, the Sergei Magnitsky international anti-corruption and human rights act, so Ukraine can defeat Putin's war machine, stop his imperial ambitions and begin to rebuild after Russia's barbaric invasion.
Canada can help save Ukraine by using Bill C-219. The only question is whether the Liberal government will act to hold Russia accountable for the devastation it has caused in Ukraine.
National Dental Hygienists Week
Mr. Speaker, oral health care is health care, and that is why I am so proud that our government launched the Canadian dental care program. For millions of Canadians with a family income under $90,000, it has made life more affordable and provided access to dental care they would not otherwise be able to access. It is also helping to prevent other, more serious health conditions that arise without proper oral care.
A key group of people in delivering oral care to Canadians are hygienists. I do not know if you knew this, Mr. Speaker, but April is Oral Health Month, and part of the celebration is National Dental Hygienists Week, which ran from April 4 to April 10. This annual event is sponsored by the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and is focused on the importance of good oral health practices while underlining the role of the dental hygiene profession in preventing and treating oral health issues. This year's theme of “oral health for total health” reminds us that taking care of our mouth, teeth and gums has a positive impact on other aspects of our life and our health care.
Dental hygienists play a critical role in prevention, early intervention, treatment and education in Etobicoke and across Canada. We thank them. Happy Oral Health Month.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised economic strength, but Canada was the only G7 country with a shrinking economy at the end of last year. The Bank of Canada and the OECD predict barely 1% growth this year, and Canada has already lost 95,000 jobs so far.
The Liberals have presided over the largest capital exodus in Canadian history, $1 trillion from 2015 to 2024, with two dollars of foreign direct investment leaving Canada for every one dollar coming in. Canada now ranks last in the G7 for investment in machinery, equipment and intellectual property. After 10 years of the Liberals, investment is down, productivity is down, and Canada is being left behind.
Conservatives warned that Liberal taxes, red tape and reckless deficits would stall Canada's economy, and now we are seeing the results. Only Conservatives have a plan to restore economic growth and productivity, by cutting taxes and regulation to unleash investment and actually deliver economic strength.
[Translation]
Outstanding Orléans Residents
Mr. Speaker, on March 19, I had the privilege of attending Rideau Hall, where two Orléans residents received the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers. Eileen McCauhey was honoured for her remarkable work with Busy Fingers, a group of 120 women who crochet thousands of items for organizations in the region.
[English]
Fourteen-year-old Hana Fatima was also recognized for her exceptional leadership, becoming the youngest person in Canada to receive the Meritorious Service Medal.
Orleans is also proud of Roy Allen. He celebrated his 100th birthday on April 5, but that is not all. He will be running in the Tamarack Ottawa Race Weekend 5K on May 23, showing that age is no barrier. Additionally, he will become the first Canadian to complete an official five-kilometre race at age 100 or more.
Congratulations, Mr. Allen.
Fuel Taxes
Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberal government has proven it is out of touch and out of ideas. While Canadians struggle to afford essentials, the Prime Minister has failed to listen, instead borrowing Conservative solutions without delivering full benefits.
Across the country, Canadians are paying 51¢ more on gas and 75¢ more on diesel, which is almost 20% more than Americans. Producers are raising the alarm about the impact this will have on food prices. Canadian farmers say they will face extremely high grocery prices, which will be going up 25% to 50%.
Canada already has the highest food inflation in the G7. That is why Conservatives have brought forward a plan to respond to Canadian needs and deliver on affordability when people need it most. Our plan would eliminate all federal taxes on fuel until the end of the year, which would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ and save families over $1,200. Canadians do not need half measures and Liberal headlines. They need real relief, and only Conservatives are fighting to deliver it.
Human Rights
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we take pride in the role we play on the international stage, committed to international law and to the principle that power must be constrained by rules, not exempt from them. Today, that commitment matters more than ever before.
There are too many places, such as Lebanon, Ukraine, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and Palestine, where civilians bear the weight of conflict, instability and the erosion of rights that should never be negotiable. Many in Mississauga Centre have lived that reality first-hand.
On April 17, we mark its inverse, the anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a declaration not only of who we are but of who we must continually choose to be.
[Translation]
As Canadians, we know that these rights, which stem from struggles against injustice, are rooted in the belief that every person has the right to dignity, freedom and security.
[English]
Human rights are not conditional. They are not selective. They are universal, or they are meaningless.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, it has been almost a year since this Liberal Prime Minister took office, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. The MNP Consumer Debt Index paints a telling picture of the Prime Minister's record: 61% of Canadians are experiencing financial whiplash and 43% of them are just $200 away from insolvency every month. Three-quarters say the rising costs of essentials like gas and groceries are straining their finances.
Day after day, the Prime Minister proves that he is just another Liberal. Yesterday, the Liberals rejected our plan to eliminate all taxes on gas for the entire year. Why will they not give a break—
Mr. Speaker, we are offering relief to Canadians, but the Conservatives are rejecting all of it. They reject dental care, they reject tax cuts, they reject GST cuts, and they still reject lowering the excise tax on gasoline and eliminating the carbon tax.
Since my colleague is talking about comparisons with last year, I would like to point out that wages in Canada increased by 4.7% in the last year since the Prime Minister took office. In the United States, that increase is 3.5%.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to pay 20% more than Americans for gas. Despite all the wonderful measures the member just listed, have grocery prices gone down? Have gas prices gone down? Have housing costs gone down? Have the lines at food banks gotten shorter? The answer is no. Despite all those measures, Canadians are getting poorer, because the Liberals' costly inflationary policies are driving up the price of everything and leaving people to struggle to make ends meet.
What happened to the Liberal Prime Minister's lofty promises on affordability?
Mr. Speaker, I did not even have time to go over all the numbers, which are very, very encouraging. The member is likely well aware of the following, and if not, he needs a better researcher. Inflation in Canada in February was 1.8%. That is at the lower end of the Bank of Canada's target range.
We are creating jobs and building this country, and we are doing so with Canadian workers and materials. We are going to build a very, very strong Canada while ensuring that wages, living conditions and quality of life improve for Canadians.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, it is a tale of two Canadas under the Prime Minister, one where people's portfolios grow and the other where people's paycheques shrink. The government's own data confirms it. The wealth gap is widening, and nearly half of Canadians are $200 from insolvency. That is what inflationary Liberal taxes and spending does. It makes gas, groceries and everything else more expensive.
Yesterday, Conservatives put forward a plan to remove all of the federal taxes on gas and diesel. The Liberals voted against that.
Do they love the tax that much or do they just hate that the idea came from Conservatives?
Mr. Speaker, we are not waiting for the Conservatives. We have already cut taxes by 28¢ a litre.
That is not it. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, we have cut the GST, we have introduced the groceries and essentials benefit, and we have reduced the cost of a home in my riding and in all of Ontario by $200,000.
Mr. Speaker, the minister could have cut the taxes by 25¢ two days ago and he chose not to, yet he is patting himself on the back for something that the government could not do properly and would not have done at all if it had not been dragged there kicking and screaming.
The Prime Minister's so-called tax cut left 15¢ a litre on Canadians' gas bills at a time when they are struggling and the government will get a windfall in its pocket. It is only for a couple of months, meaning that the tax returns at 100% in September.
Why will the government not just properly take off all of the taxes, all 25¢, for the rest of the year?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives love to talk about the United States. We have reduced the tax on a litre of gasoline by 28¢; the United States, zero. We know how to do affordability.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that Canadians are keeping up with record costs. MNP reports that gas and grocery prices are straining three out of four Canadians. Two out of three Canadians are working harder but not getting ahead. One out of three Canadians cannot cover their bills and their debt payments.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister voted against our motion to cut all taxes on gas and diesel until the end of the year. Nobody is keeping up, except the rich whom the Prime Minister keeps making richer. Why punish the poor even more, when the Liberals can scrap the tax on gas today?
Mr. Speaker, there are two competing visions for the Canadian economy being put forward in this House. On the Conservative side, members want the tired approach of cutting taxes for the wealthy and hoping everybody else works things out. On this side of the House, we want to build a strong economy that works for everybody.
We have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7, we are leading the world in foreign direct investment per capita and wages are outpacing inflation. We are using this economic growth to support families, with more than $1,800 coming through the groceries and essentials benefit, programs that have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians and continued support to make sure working people can get ahead. That is the Canada I believe in.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, that is some economy those Liberals built. According to MNP, 40% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency. StatsCan says that the wealthiest now control two-thirds of our net worth. RBC states a trillion dollars, gone. Imagine a third of our jobs, our economy, gone up in smoke.
The Liberals want Canadians demoralized, divided and disenfranchised because the Prime Minister knows if they stop believing in this country, he gets to remake it. Which Liberals will stand up to defend that?
Mr. Speaker, whether $190 a year, $1,800 a year or $12,000 a year, no matter the savings that we find for Canadians, the answer from the Conservative Party is, “No, not that, not those savings for families. That is not good enough.”
Families know that this government is here to support them in these times and in all times. This is the way to build Canada strong for all.
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got himself elected on a promise to protect the economy from Donald Trump's tariffs, but yesterday he had no idea what the Bloc Québécois leader was talking about when he informed him that Washington had changed its steel and aluminum tariffs.
Americans are now charging a 25% tariff on the total value of all products containing steel or aluminum. They are taxing not only the metal, but the total value added. Donald Trump signed that order two weeks ago.
What has the Prime Minister done to help our businesses since then?
Mr. Speaker, we are just as concerned as every other member of the House.
Recently, two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce made changes to apply some completely unjustified tariffs on the total value of certain products rather than on the value of the steel or aluminum they contain.
We are aware of the impact of this on certain Canadian industries. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, is working hard on this issue. I, along with other colleagues, have raised the matter with the U.S. government. We are working as fast as possible to find a solution.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's new tariff calculations threaten the entire industrial landscape of aluminum and steel processing in Quebec. As a result, companies like BRP are collapsing on the stock market and others are set to reduce their production or shut down, like Venmar in Drummondville.
The Prime Minister must support Quebec's aluminum and steel, including its processing. He must also help our SMEs understand how to adapt to the new tariffs set out in the order from Washington's 58 pages of complex schedules.
Beyond simply understanding the file, will the government act before our businesses are forced to lay off workers?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we share the concerns my colleague raised. This is a concern in her province of Quebec, but also elsewhere in Canada. In my home province of New Brunswick, I have spoken to businesses that are also facing difficult times.
That is precisely why my colleague raised the importance of supporting SMEs and helping workers and businesses deal with these unjustified tariffs. That is exactly what our government is doing. At the same time, we are moving forward in our negotiations with the Americans to make them understand that this is not in their economic interest.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is already hit hardest by Donald Trump's tariffs. Our industrial sectors are struggling, and Quebec is losing the most jobs. It is only going to get worse with the new tariff calculations that are going to tax our aluminium- and steel-based products on their total value, in addition to the metal itself. This sends the message that there is no longer any advantage to processing our resources in Quebec, and it threatens thousands of businesses, both small and large.
Ottawa is always there for Ontario's automotive industry. When will there be support for Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I do not share the pessimism of our colleague opposite. As for the Government of Canada's obligation to support all regions of Canada, all industries and all workers, that is precisely what we are doing.
I understand the issues facing the member's province. As I said, the situation is the same in many other provinces. We make no distinction when it comes to the importance of defending Canadian industries across the country. That is what we are doing, and we will continue to do so.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal governments, Canadians are at a breaking point. Here are the sobering statistics. Nearly a third of Canadians say they do not earn enough to cover their bills. Nearly four out of 10 are worried about losing their job. Three out of five say they are working harder, but not getting ahead. Just yesterday, the Liberal government voted against affordability for Canadians yet again.
Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians with real relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut all federal taxes on gas and food?
Mr. Speaker, that Conservative leader and House leader questioning our Prime Minister's economic education and experience is like a third-line beer league hockey player questioning Connor McGregor's hockey skills.
On this side of the House, we are focused on affordability for Canadians. We paused the excise tax. We cut the consumer carbon tax.
It is time for that party, that leader and that House leader to get off the bench and support our measures.
Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives offer real relief, the Liberals are offering pennies at the pump. Their plan cuts only a third of the taxes they collect on fuel for a third of the year. These tiny tax cuts will be burned up immediately as gas stations are switching over to more expensive summer fuel blends. Liberal taxes are so out of control that one out of five young Canadians say they will need to go into debt just to pay their tax bill.
Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians with real relief instead of half measures and adopt our Conservative plan to cut all taxes on fuel for the rest of the year?
Mr. Speaker, I know that leader is focused on his podcast tour and trying to save his career. On this side, we are focused on affordability. We paused the excise tax and cut the consumer carbon tax, which is 28¢ a litre; cut the GST for first-time homebuyers; and the list goes on and on.
On that side of the House, as we can see, it is rhymes, rhetoric and bluster. On this side, we are focused on affordability for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, nearly three-quarters of Canadians say that the rising cost of essentials, like food and fuel, is putting serious strain on their finances. After years of Liberal policies driving up the cost of living, Canadians are being forced to make impossible choices just to get by. Yet, just yesterday, Liberals voted against a motion that would have removed taxes on gas and diesel, lowering prices for families.
The question is simple: Will the Prime Minister listen to hard-working families, remove gas taxes and make life more affordable for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is dripping from the walls in this place. Conservatives, over the six and a half years that I have been in this House, have opposed every affordability measure that helps real Canadians and families. For six and a half years, we have seen them vote against child care, dental care and the Canada child benefit. They voted against feeding 400,000 more kids in school. They voted against the groceries and essentials benefit. Now they are saying we should do more at the pump, after we just cut the excise tax over the summer by 10¢ at the pump for Canadians, on top of all the other affordability measures we have put forward.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 73% of Canadians say they are cutting back on spending. There are already reports of food suppliers adding surcharges to offset the soaring cost of fuel, which will only increase the cost of food. Food banks are reporting they are spending more on fuel and less on food as demand continues to soar.
Families need relief today, yet the Prime Minister's solution is a temporary half-measure, leaving gas taxes largely in place. Every tax on fuel is a tax on families and a tax on food. Will they do the right thing and remove all taxes on gas, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservatives are fiercely determined to become even more unpopular. It is due to the Conservatives, I am sure, playing political games with Canadians and the struggles they are facing today while opposing affordability measures. It is just disingenuous.
The woes of Canadians are not to be trifled with. On this side of the House, we know that. That is why we are providing immediate federal support in the form of another 10¢ tax cut at the pump, an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians, and offering a groceries and essentials benefit that will put over $1,800 into the families—
Mr. Speaker, 74% of Canadians report that rising gas and food prices are killing their household budgets. While the Liberals claim they care about affordability, food banks are literally removing meat from their shelves, because it is too expensive to stock. Now, add the fuel surcharges being introduced by some food suppliers on deliveries to grocery stores.
Does the Prime Minister truly believe that his temporary 10¢ per litre reduction, which expires after Labour Day, will fix the supply chain crushed by his industrial carbon tax and now rising fuel prices?
Mr. Speaker, it is what the Conservatives do not say in their prepared speeches, written by the Conservative leader, that Canadians really need to know, which is how they plan to pay for these outlandish and irresponsible proposals.
The Conservatives can question the economic acumen of one of the most world-renowned economists if they like, but what Canadians know is that Liberals are delivering on affordable child care and dental care, and our government is meeting the moment with—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Conservatives are angry because they cannot read or because they are getting told what to say in this place. Either way, we have Canadians' backs.
Mr. Speaker, these Liberals are going to have to pick a lane. On the one hand, they claim that a hidden industrial carbon tax buried in the food supply chain does not affect the price of groceries. On the other hand, they offer temporary half measures of relief for Canadians from rising fuel prices, acknowledging the hidden costs, the excise taxes and fuel prices, and are still pocketing the higher tax revenues generated from those same rising fuel prices.
Why did the Liberals vote against our plan to remove all fuel taxes for the entire year?
Mr. Speaker, the hidden cost is exactly what the Conservatives are hiding from Canadians. What are they going to cut to pay for their irresponsible suggestions? They are going to cut child care. They are going to cut dental care. They are not going to do a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. They are certainly not going to do a groceries and essentials benefit. How do we know that? They voted against every single affordability proposal the government has put on the table for them to vote for. They can question the economic acumen of a world-renowned economist if they like, but Canadians can see right through this bluster.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal policy, Canadians are not just stretched; they are falling behind. New data shows that 61% of Canadians feel financial whiplash from economic instability, 74% say rising costs for essentials are straining their finances, and 43% are just $200 away from insolvency each month.
One senior told me she needs just $100 more a month to avoid the food bank, but even that is now out of reach. Families are cutting back, worried about job security, and in too many cases still not earning enough to cover their bills. Is this the unaffordability reality that these Liberals are deciding for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, since our government took office, we have been squarely focused on the issues that my colleague opposite raises. In fact, members can start to see the proof in the pudding here. Wages for Canadians right now are up 4.7% in the past year, while inflation is at about 1.8%. That is making a difference in the affordability in the lives of Canadians. Right now, at this time of year, Canadians are focused on tax season, and they are focused on affordability. That is why we have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians and introduced a groceries benefit that is going to help a lot of the seniors in that member's riding when it comes into effect this spring.
[Translation]
News Media Industry
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to overstate the importance of regional news media. However, the last outlets left in Quebec are going to close unless Ottawa takes swift action. When the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission opened the independent local news fund to 15 Global News stations, it added 15 new players, all required to share the same funds.
As a result, funding for francophone media dropped by half and these outlets are at risk of vanishing. In 12 days, the Liberals are going to present an economic update. Are they going to enhance this vital fund?
Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, whether through the Canadian journalism labour tax credit, the Canada Media Fund or the community newspaper fund, we will never stop supporting a strong and independent French-language media ecosystem.
Mr. Speaker, we are so close. We almost got an answer. The government is presenting an economic update in 12 days. The future of francophone regional news media is at stake. We cannot wait for the web giants to stop challenging our laws in court to avoid paying their fair share. We are running out of time.
The government must extend its journalism labour tax credit to electronic media as well as print media. It needs to increase funding for the independent local news fund. It also needs to stop subsidizing advertising on the major digital platforms. The future of local media is at stake right now.
Will the economic update provide assistance to our regional news media?
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, since the U.S. tariffs were imposed, Canadian exports have nosedived by more than 15% and jobs are disappearing across the country. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has confirmed that Chinese steel is being dumped in Canada, directly harming our workers.
Our companies are being hit on two fronts: first by the Americans, and second by unfair competition from China. During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister said he was the only one who could deal with Donald Trump. Canadians, however, are struggling to pay their bills and now they are losing their jobs.
Why did he make a promise that he has a hard time keeping?
Mr. Speaker, while it is true that some things are beyond our control, including the illegitimate and unlawful tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration, some things we do control. That includes the major projects we are building here and the help that we are providing to the middle class.
If we look at the figures for the past year, we see that inflation is in the bottom range of the Bank of Canada's estimate, that salary increases are the most impressive of the G7, at 4.7% year over year, and that the International Monetary Fund is predicting that Canada will post the second-strongest growth among G7 nations. That is what building Canada strong is all about.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister go talk to the 700 employees of Paccar in Sainte-Thérèse who lost their job because of the tariffs? Then there is BRP, which suffered a $500-million loss due to a 35% drop in its stock price. Once again, it is the jobs of Quebec workers that are at risk. These are not just abstract numbers. They represent the reality of everyday life.
Let us not forget that the Prime Minister said during the election that he was the only person in the world who could deal with Donald Trump. We are seeing job losses and disasters, and on top of that, there is China.
What is the Prime Minister going to do?
Mr. Speaker, for nearly a year now we have been renegotiating our relationship with the Americans. We are not going to sign just any agreement. This agreement will need to benefit us, too.
In the meantime, we are supporting our businesses, as we did with Paccar. Paccar was affected by the tariffs and our government negotiated a host of measures to help it through these difficult times. We will do that again.
Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Speaker, we thought we had seen it all with the Liberals in charge of the Canada Revenue Agency, but it turns out that things are worse than we thought.
Canadian families are struggling to cope with Liberal food inflation. Meanwhile, CBC reported this morning that the Canada Revenue Agency paid out $5 million to a fraudster who filed a bogus return. It paid out $5 million without checking a thing. This is where we are at after 10 years of Liberals running the Canada Revenue Agency.
Can anyone defend the indefensible here?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Connor McDavid is a great hockey player.
Abuse of the tax system is illegal, and the CRA takes enforcement action when instances of abuse are identified. We cannot comment on specific cases and matters that are before the courts. Canadians can be assured that the CRA will always take every measure to ensure tax fairness. When the debt is established to the CRA, the agency takes legal action if necessary, using all available measures to ensure compliance.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, [Technical difficulty—Editor] hockey player. The CRA gave a fraudster $5 million. Those people have been mismanaging the CRA for a decade. As a result, if honest folks make a little $100 or $200 mistake on their income, it is the end of the world and the CRA throws the book at them, yet it gives $5 million to a fraudster.
I will not stand for the minister hiding behind the fact that he cannot comment on specific cases. Five million dollars is crazy. I want him to stand up and—
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I respect the member opposite and appreciate his passion. We know that abuse of the tax system is illegal. The CRA processes millions of tax returns per year. It does an outstanding job overall. We are in tax season right now. It is my chance to tell Canadians to file their taxes before April 30. We cannot comment on individual tax cases that are before the courts.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, my granddaughter Clémence, my eighth grandchild, was born last night. The Liberal federal government has gifted her with $44,716 in debt. What a great start to life. Luckily, the Prime Minister is offering her a four-cent reduction on a litre of diesel. Talk about ironic.
How will those four cents help Clémence start her life with peace of mind?
Mr. Speaker, we would like to welcome little Clémence. However, I would warn the member opposite that, when she grows up, he will have to answer some difficult questions. With eight children, the Canada child benefit starts to add up to quite a bit of money each month, and, unfortunately, the member opposite voted against it. We can spare pretty little Clémence a bit of disappointment if the member stands up and apologizes for having voted against such measures for her.
[English]
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, wild Pacific salmon are a part of who we are for everyone who calls British Columbia or Yukon home. Climate change and habitat loss are already putting additional pressure on this threatened species. We have a responsibility to help this species rebuild.
Can the Minister of Fisheries tell us what this government is doing to help protect wild salmon populations for everyone in British Columbia and along the west coast?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his commitment to wild salmon.
Wild Pacific salmon is a vital part of the economy of the west coast. I was in British Columbia recently to announce our government's new commitment of close to $143 million in funding for the Pacific salmon strategy initiative. This brings the federal commitment to wild Pacific salmon to over $1 billion to support science, restore habitat and modernize salmon fisheries.
Together, we can rebuild wild salmon and build a stronger economy.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a damning report, saying that Canada is now in an “entrepreneurial drought”, with more businesses closing than opening for six straight quarters. More than half of small business owners “would not recommend starting a business” in this country, and there are now 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs than we had 20 years ago. Most damning is that 73% of survey respondents indicated a lack of confidence in this Liberal government.
What is the Prime Minister's response to the alarming decline of entrepreneurship in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, small businesses have shown incredible resilience as we continue to face this trade war. We are cutting red tape for small businesses, improving access for financing for them and helping SMEs pivot to new markets while the Prime Minister secures trade agreements with other countries.
Our buy Canadian policy is giving Canadian businesses those opportunities to secure procurement opportunities. That is strengthening our economy, creating jobs and ensuring that we are giving them all the opportunities to grow and thrive.
Mr. Speaker, whatever the government is doing, it is not working, and a myriad of programs will not replace the structural forms necessary to improve the entrepreneurial climate in Canada.
Small businesses indeed are being squeezed from every direction by this government, with higher payroll taxes, rising costs and endless regulations. This government is doing nothing to stop that.
How many more businesses have to shut their doors before the Prime Minister reverses some of these horrible economic policies and lets Canadian entrepreneurs succeed once again?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the “Canada is broken” narrative from the Conservatives, we believe in our small businesses. Reports show that Canada is attracting the highest level of foreign direct investment. In fact, we are now in second place in the G7. The world trusts Canada, with our strong economy and our resilience. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, we are securing trade agreements, creating jobs and strengthening our economy. That is how we empower small businesses in this country.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business delivered its verdict on the Prime Minister's economy. Canada is in an “entrepreneurial drought”. For six consecutive quarters, more businesses have closed than opened, and 55% of Canadian business owners now “would not recommend [opening] a business” in this country. High costs, crushing red tape, punishing taxes, that is the Liberal record.
After over a decade of the Liberal government, when will the Prime Minister finally reverse its job-crippling policies so Canadian businesses can thrive?
Mr. Speaker, just recently, we have seen that foreign direct investment is at an all-time high in decades. Kraft Heinz is investing $250 million in Montreal. Bayer is investing $45 million in canola research in Winnipeg. Froneri ice cream giant is expanding its Canadian operation. Mars Canada is investing $180 million across Ontario. Coca-Cola is investing $141 million into its Brampton facility.
All of these companies believe in Canada and Canadians. Why does the opposition not?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can recite his talking points all afternoon, but 97,000 entrepreneurs have already revealed the truth. High costs, high taxes and red tape are all driving entrepreneurs out of the country. A recent RBC report highlighted $1 trillion in capital flight over the last 10 years. The Liberals never want to talk about that. The Leaders Fund report has said that more than two-thirds of Canadian entrepreneurs are now starting businesses outside the country.
Will the Prime Minister commit today to reversing tax and regulatory policies that are shutting down Canadian businesses, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, I heard a little bit of chatter about RBC's most recent report. It says, “Canada is back on the radar of global investors...Canada reached nearly $100 billion, the highest level since 2015.”
We are strengthening domestic food processing, increasing capital public partnership investments, reducing regulatory impediments, and growing and diversifying our markets. We are working alongside business communities right across the country, to make this place a much better place.
Mr. Speaker, with record closures across the country, Canada's small businesses are sounding the alarm. High costs, red tape and never-ending uncertainty are discouraging the next generation of entrepreneurs. Do not take it from me. Brianna Solberg of the CFIB warns that “Canada’s economic foundation is crumbling.”
After 10 years of bad Liberal policy, half of small business owners say they would not recommend starting a business.
Why do the Liberals continue to make it harder and not easier for small businesses here in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, we recently launched a defence industrial strategy for the country and it is taking hold. There has already been $14 billion in annual revenue contributing to over 81,000 direct and 200,000 indirect jobs. In the joint support ships alone, we see 3,100 jobs; River class destroyer ships, 9,000 jobs; fixed-wing search and rescue, 1,800 jobs; and logistics vehicle modernization, 1,500 jobs.
There are tens of thousands more jobs coming for our small and medium-sized businesses.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, back home in New Brunswick, families pay 32¢ more per litre for gasoline than drivers in neighbouring Maine pay. The price difference is not because of global markets. Pumps on both sides of the Maine-New Brunswick border get their supply from the Saint John refinery. The difference is that, because of Liberal tax increases. Canadians can no longer afford to buy the things that we make here in Canada because of high energy taxes.
Will the Liberals listen to Conservatives and cut gas prices by 25¢ a litre by eliminating all federal gas taxes?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that he talks about the United States. While we have cut taxes by 28¢ a litre already, the United States has cut the taxes on gas by zero. That is the difference between a government that cares about affordability and one that does not.
Mr. Speaker, the United States never had a carbon tax that the government implemented. The Liberals drove up energy taxes for 10 years and when Canadians were screaming in pain, they cut them. They still will not go all the way and reduce the federal gas tax, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard that keep prices sky-high.
When will the government act, cut the taxes and give Canadians the break they need and deserve?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have already cut the gas tax by 28¢. We are not stopping there. We have cut taxes for 22 million people. We have cut the GST. We have introduced the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit. With all the measures, we have made housing cheaper by $200,000 a home. That is what making affordability looks like.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, London's unemployment rate has climbed to 9.1%, the highest in Canada. Meanwhile, RBC reports that more than $1 trillion in capital has left Canada since the Liberals took power in 2015. London has the workers, the talent and the potential. The Liberals promised to build like never before, but Londoners are not seeing this at all. Will the Liberals finally unleash Canada's economy, attract investments and create the conditions for businesses to grow and London to thrive?
Mr. Speaker, London certainly does have the talent and the potential for a great future. For too long, our region has been dependent on trade. We are diversifying now. The unemployment rate he talks about is an immense challenge. We are focusing on, among other things, defence: $6 billion over the next few years will give us 125,000 jobs by 2035. Southwestern Ontario and London are a defence anchor in this country in particular. We look forward to defence. We want to invest in it. We will get that job done.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are very good at making promises and excuses, but Londoners need results. Today, global uncertainty should be a wake-up call to strengthen our competitiveness at home, so Canada has leverage abroad, yet beyond rhetoric, the government has taken no meaningful action. It has failed to unleash our energy and failed to advance pipelines or any major projects, while doubling down on anti-business taxes and regulations, like the industrial carbon tax, that drive capital out of Canada.
When will the government finally take competitiveness seriously, scrap the industrial carbon tax and make Canada, including London, a place businesses want to invest in?
Mr. Speaker, the member speaks with passion for London. Every member in this House of Commons who represents London and the southwest has passion, so I invite my colleague. We need more investment in London. We will see that through the defence spending that I just mentioned before, among other things. However, let us open our hearts to the suffering that exists when we come to the analysis of what is going on in this country. The Conservatives talk about the needs of people on the ground, yet they do not want to support dental care. They do not want to support pharmacare. They do not want to support the Canada child benefit. They do not want to support any of these initiatives to help people in a very difficult time. It is unacceptable.
[Translation]
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, we are diversifying our trade, moving forward with major projects and working to double our non-U.S. exports. Last week, we launched the work to expand the port of Montreal in the town of Contrecoeur.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us why this project is important and what a difference it will make for Canada?
Mr. Speaker, last week, I was proud to announce, together with my hon. colleague, the Prime Minister and many government members from Quebec and elsewhere, the start of the work to expand the port of Montreal in Contrecoeur. It is an interesting project, a megaproject in fact, that will increase by 60% the capacity of the port of Montreal. We are very proud of that. It is the latest example of how we are building Canada strong and great, with Canadian men and women and Canadian materials.
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' contempt for accountability knows no bounds. For days, Liberal MPs have been filibustering at the ethics committee to shield the finance minister from answering questions about his role in handing out billions of tax dollars to Alto, handing billions of tax dollars to a company in which his partner serves as a VP. Now, incredibly, the minister claims there is nothing to see here and that everything was above board. If that is the case, why the obstruction? Why will the minister not come to committee?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has among the strictest ethics rules in the world. All members of this House and designated public office holders must follow those rules to the letter, and that is certainly the case in the case of the Minister of Finance. However, let us talk about high-speed rail. The Conservatives are promising to cancel a nation-building and unifying project that would help build the country and change the face of mobility in Canada. We are going to press ahead. We are going to build high-speed rail, and we are going to get it done quickly.
Mr. Speaker, does the House know what it is called when a minister of the Crown repeatedly introduces, speaks to and votes on legislation, but hands billions of tax dollars to a company that his partner is connected to? It is called a conflict of interest. Is that not the real reason for the obstruction? Is that not why the minister is afraid to come to committee?
Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat again for the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has followed the strictest rules in the world, and he has followed them to the letter. What this member needs to do is walk down to the front row and tell his leader to get out of the way and off the tracks, because high-speed rail is coming right at him. It is coming fast, and it is coming with Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers barrelling right down.
Mr. Speaker, what Canadians would like is for the Liberals to get out of the way of accountability that Canadians expect to be brought to bear against a government, against a minister who said he would be in a conflict of interest because his partner is a vice-president at Alto if he voted on this project, if he debated it, if he discussed it, if he decided on it in cabinet. This is why we are asking for the minister to come to committee. It is a conflict of interest dealing with $90 billion.
Why is it that these Liberals are doing everything they can to block accountability with their filibuster? When will the minister come to committee?
Mr. Speaker, we have the strictest rules in the world. We indeed have a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. This matter has been put before that Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as this member knows very well, many times, and they have found precisely zero. This is because the Minister of Finance rigorously follows the rules, as do we all.
As for high-speed rail, which will go very close to, if not through this member's region, he should be ashamed of getting in the way of high-speed rail that Canadians look forward to.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, workers in federally regulated sectors, whether they are in banking, telecommunications or interprovincial transportation, need their wages to keep pace with the cost of living. Effective April 1, the federal minimum wage increased once again.
Could the Secretary of State for Labour explain what this increase means for workers in federally regulated sectors?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the hard work she is doing on behalf of her community. We are focused on growing the economy and supporting Canadian workers. This is why the federal minimum wage is indexed to inflation with an increase to $18.15 on April 1, representing a 21% increase since 2021. These are steady, predictable increases that benefit workers. It is about fairness, stability and building an economy that works for everyone. Our new government is building Canada strong for all.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Islamic Republic of Iran jails dissidents, massacres its own people, exports terror and is formally listed by Canada as a state sponsor of terrorism, yet just last week, the Liberals backed the regime in Iran for a seat on the UN Committee for Programme and Coordination, a body that helps shape policy on human rights, women's rights, disarmament and terrorism prevention. Canadians are wondering why the Liberal government is elevating a murderous, terrorist regime at the United Nations.
Conservatives are asking again, why are the Liberals and their Liberal UN appointee legitimizing the ayatollahs, and is this really where the Prime Minister's values stand?
Mr. Speaker, Canada does not support Iran for positions of influence in the United Nations. Iran was nominated to the UN Committee for Programme and Coordination by acclamation. As the position was uncontested, there was no opportunity for a vote. The vote to elect nominated candidates will take place in the UN General Assembly in November. Canada works closely with partners to actively counter Iran's candidacies in UN bodies and will continue to do so on all occasions.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, while the government lets oil companies rake in record profits and gouge Canadians at the pump, Imperial Oil is now reporting another major spill of 843,000 litres of toxins, salt and bitumen. Meanwhile, indigenous leaders are waiting for action on more than a trillion litres of toxic tailings leaking into watersheds in northern Alberta.
What will it take for the government to protect Canadians, to respect indigenous rights and to enforce environmental laws in this country?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's pipeline network is held to strict standards and protects communities and the environment. Regulators provide independent oversight and oversee all responses and enforcement efforts. Pipelines remain the safest way and the most cost-effective way to move large volumes of oil and gas, and Canada has a strong safety record.
In all cases, federal regulations ensure that companies, not taxpayers, are financially liable for the incidents and the reclamation.
Grocery Industry
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the NDP moved a unanimous consent motion in this House to ban surveillance pricing, and every party agreed except the Liberals, who blocked it. Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling with the cost of living and corporations are using algorithms to figure out how much more they can squeeze out of family budgets and seniors living on fixed incomes.
Why did the government block this common-sense measure, and will the Prime Minister commit today to banning surveillance pricing in Canada, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that competition drives the economy, and they expect companies to be fair and transparent to consumers.
As the Competition Bureau reported earlier this year, algorithmic pricing can lead to fewer choices and higher costs for Canadians. Our position is clear: We want more choice, more competition and better prices for Canadians. That is why we are actively reviewing algorithmic pricing across sectors, including through competition, finance and private policy.
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I incorrectly said that the PSSI in B.C. was $143 million. It is $412 million.
Mr. Speaker, while we are just talking about corrections, I just want to thank the Secretary of State for Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions for delineating the difference between Connor McGregor and Connor McDavid. I will say, to his credit, that he is more right than when people, Canadians, phone into the CRA and ask questions.
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, it is the time of the week when I am told CPAC has to have extra server capacity on standby for the surge of attention to the chamber's proceedings. However, it being Thursday, it is time for the update from the government on the business for the rest of this week and into next.
I was hoping the government could address a shocking report that came out this week that $1 trillion of investment has fled Canada since 2015. Now, something happened in 2015: The Liberals took office. Ever since then, there has been a flight of capital from our country. RBC today calculates that at $1 trillion. That is a trillion dollars' worth of investment leaving our country and weakening our dollar. This means it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of goods. It also means there are fewer jobs and opportunities for Canadians and less revenue for government to invest in core services.
Will the government be bringing in any kind of legislation to undo the bad Liberal laws that chased away that investment, such as repealing the “no more pipelines” bill, the “leave it in the ground” bill and the shipping ban off the coast of western Canada? If the government was going to announce today that it would be undoing the terrible decisions of the last 10 years of Liberal rule, Conservatives would do everything we could to quickly pass those pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend took a few liberties with the facts. However, if he wants to know generally whether the government is going to put in place measures to make sure that Canada has the strongest economy in the G7, then the answer is a resounding yes.
I would simply point out that there is, in that number, a number of investments that, of course, reap returns that are brought back to Canada to help our pension funds pay their pension obligations to teachers, nurses, municipal workers, federal public servants and many other pensioners in the country. I am sure that is something the member wants to have continue.
[Translation]
[English]
Next Tuesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. On Wednesday, we shall commence debate on second reading of Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act. Finally, Thursday, April 23, shall be an allotted day.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Strong and Free Elections Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud to rise on behalf of my constituents to speak to Bill C-25. I would like to mention at the beginning that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.
Today we are debating an important piece of legislation that is especially relevant to the democratic process that Canadians take part in during each federal election, which results in our having the true privilege and honour to serve in this place and represent them.
There are several aspects to the bill, and while my colleagues across party lines have spoken to different mechanisms within the legislation, I will be focusing on two that are of particular importance to me.
Before I do that, I want to be clear: This bill does have merits. Many of its provisions, which I think our shadow minister has already mentioned, are certainly welcome, and the bill deserves to be studied further at the committee stage of the process. I believe most of our colleagues here today would agree with that. They would also agree that trust in our democracy remains of the utmost importance to Canadians.
As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to uphold democracy and ensure the interests of Canadians are represented in that process. Democratic trust binds all actors within our federal elections, and that trust is earned. Some of the most important actors in our democratic processes are the voters, who cast their ballots in each election. They deserve the ability to trust that their will is reflected in the outcome of our elections in every constituency across this country, regardless of the result of each of those votes.
That brings me to the two most important points I would like to focus on today. First, there is the work done by Conservatives in mobilizing action to defend our democracy against the longest ballot committee movement. Second, there are the gaps that currently exist in protection from foreign interference, which have been allowed to persist over the last 11 years under the Liberal government.
While it is great to see the Liberals begin to take these concerns seriously, it is unfortunate that they have chosen to wait so long to bring any meaningful change forward. However, that is nothing new. As is commonly said, imitation is the greatest or sincerest form of flattery, and Conservatives are very proud to be making real change from the opposition benches to ensure better government and better democracy in this country.
As the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris, I have heard the concerns of my constituents. Both during and following last year's federal election, I heard loud and clear that the actions of the so-called longest ballot committee significantly impacted the ability of many Canadians to cast their ballot. Any action that is deliberately confusing or attempts to discourage voters and that creates unnecessary burdens for the staff at Elections Canada, who in many cases come out of retirement just to work on our election days, does not serve the best interests of our democratic system. This was an absolutely unacceptable act to voters, to my constituents back at home, and I heard that at door after door.
In fact, those efforts created barriers, particularly for some of the most vulnerable in our society, or seniors and individuals with disabilities, which my constituents found exceptionally distasteful. Canadians need to be able to trust in our system, but they are right to question why loopholes in the Canada Elections Act allow groups to intentionally disrupt the voter process in the first place.
In July 2025, the leader of the official opposition, who has been the target of several campaigns by the longest ballot committee, and our shadow minister for democratic reform wrote a letter to the Liberal government demanding the rapid implementation of legislation and that priority should be placed on this by the government to protect Canadian federal elections from these tactics.
This is why, in October 2025, I was proud to table a petition to Parliament in response to the actions of the longest ballot committee. My petition received hundreds of signatures from Canadians who supported calling on the Government of Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit an individual from serving as the official agent for more than one candidate in a federal election.
There were further deliberations, which I was proud to take part of as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, that resulted in a report with seven or eight recommendations to the government to take action, and we are pleased to see that many of them are reflected in this bill. We are pleased that Bill C-25 would adopt some of our ideas and partially reflect the concerns of the petitioners who took time out of their busy schedules to respond to the need for change in this area.
Conservatives have pushed for simple measures like this, which are very clear in their purpose, that would ensure that trust remains a cornerstone of any general election or by-election that takes place in Canada. Conservatives have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to get serious, and finally, in Bill C-25, we have forced the Liberals to produce a piece of legislation in the House that seeks to significantly change the Canada Elections Act. Some of those changes are close to what Conservatives have called for. Other changes in this bill would have significant impacts on administrative monetary penalties in the act and the suggested powers granted to the commissioner of Canada elections. These are among several other changes that need careful consideration and study, so we believe strongly in sending this bill to committee for the in-depth analysis that that part of our legislative process allows.
However, what I find most troubling about where we are now is the fact that four federal by-elections have taken place since the federal election last year and, in these by-elections, Canadians voted under the pressures of the longest ballot committee, most recently in the riding of Terrebonne earlier this week. The Liberals want to pat themselves on the back for tabling this legislation, but Canadians are right to question why, despite warnings from Conservatives, the Chief Electoral Officer and others, who gave recommendations to prevent this type of disruption all the way back in 2024, it took so long to see legislation developed and debated. It was just a few weeks ago. There will be more to say regarding this at committee.
Now, I will transition my comments to the foreign interference part of this piece of legislation. Canadians expect their governments to act in the face of all threats to our democracy, whether they be foreign or domestic, in a rapid and decisive manner. This brings me to my second point. While I have concerns with the actions of the Canadians who choose to protest through the longest ballot committee, I also have concerns with the lack of action to combat foreign entities who would seek to influence the outcomes of our election. This meddling by foreign actors in Canadian elections is a pervasive threat to Canada's democracy. These threats are real, and we know where they come from.
The Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions was before my time, before I was elected to this place, but I want to thank Commissioner Hogue for her diligence and efforts. The commissioner found that “foreign states are trying to interfere in our democratic institutions, including electoral processes.” She expressed serious concerns with foreign interference in the nomination race for a former member for Don Valley North in 2019, and significant events have taken place in the years since.
Bill C-25 would take steps to address these election interference gaps, such as prohibiting undue influence by foreigners related to electors' voting, refraining from voting or voting for a specific candidate, party or election. It would also touch on pieces of third-party finance with relation to funds coming from foreign actors.
I would recognize that, after questioning from the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, the minister responsible did take it under consideration that the bill would allow a 10% financing gap, and he committed to studying at committee that some of those provisions should be removed from the process or at least looked into at the committee stage. We look forward to the minister's following through on that process.
Regardless of the Liberals' failures on this file so far, I am encouraged that the bill has come forward. I am very much looking forward, as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, to discussing this bill in depth at committee.
Through this legislation, I am hopeful that Canada and Canadians could finally take actions that Conservatives have been recommending for some time, which we know are in the best interests of supporting and defending this democratic institution and the process that gets members elected here, to ensure Canadians can have the confidence and the trust in our institutions they deserve. That is their right. That is why I am very glad to support this bill's moving forward to the committee stage.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the collaboration that we have had on the committee to move this bill forward, which will continue as this bill goes back to our committee.
Obviously, a key piece of this bill is to make sure that people who give misleading and false information during elections are held accountable. Does the hon. member believe that people who are giving misleading information, which can erode Canadian trust in our elections, should not be held accountable, and if so, why?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for that comment. I appreciate the collaboration we have on the procedure and House affairs committee.
I am not sure I said in my speech that I do not believe people spreading disinformation should not be held accountable. I think that warrants further study. The bill includes increased powers for the commissioner of Canada elections. It includes increased monetary penalties. I look forward to discussing and debating that further. As I recall, that was not part of the study that we did specific to the longest ballot committee's actions. That is why I believe this bill should move forward to committee stage so we can investigate those positions a little more closely.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks, and I would like to point out that, when we discussed foreign interference, several colleagues here agreed with me, following those 70 meetings, that an independent public inquiry into the issue of foreign interference needed to be called. This bill is not only important, but essential.
Since our own Privacy Commissioner lacks sufficient enforcement powers to deal with the Chinese vehicles that are coming to Canada, would my colleague agree that this is urgent and that the committee needs to have safeguards strong enough to ensure that our elections reflect a healthy democracy?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her work in past Parliaments and past committees on this topic.
It is very concerning to Canadians and Conservatives the position China has. Law enforcement agencies, as well as Global Affairs, have confirmed it is the greatest threat actor to Canadian democracy and one that interferes the most in Canadian elections. That has been very clear from the officials.
Chinese vehicles coming into the Canadian market may present a serious security risk. I think the government needs to be held accountable for allowing these vehicles in. What security parameters is it putting in place to ensure that Canadian electors, and the information surrounding the Canadian public in general, are safe and secure while these vehicles come into our market?
The member raises a great point. I think it is important that the committee, as part of its debate on this bill, investigate whether those provisions are in place.
Mr. Speaker, the pervasiveness of foreign interference is having a profound impact on our elections. It may even be affecting the ultimate outcomes. My question is whether or not it would be considered foreign interference or fraud if individuals who are not citizens of Canada were to cast a ballot. If the member knows, would that be grounds for not granting citizenship or denying it?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is very alarming to hear reports of the potential that a non-citizen has voted in a Canadian election. We know there are instances where the Chief Electoral Officer has reported that some of those events may or may not have taken place, so they absolutely should be investigated as part of an investigation into someone's application status or where they are within our immigration process.
One has to be a citizen to vote in this country. That is the law. It should remain the law. Our institutions need to defend that principle of Canadian democracy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact an act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026.
As everyone knows, my riding is currently called Richmond—Arthabaska. The aim is to change its name to Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources. This is important to me. The Les Sources RCM is currently the heart of the riding, but it is not represented. At present, the Les Sources RCM is undergoing rapid development. My riding encompasses 39 municipalities, including all seven municipalities within the Les Sources RCM. Unfortunately, the current name makes no reference to that. To make it easier for voters to identify their territory, I think it would be important for the name to include all three major areas, namely Arthabaska, Richmond and Val‑des‑Sources, which is at its heart.
On Wednesday, January 21, I made the announcement to the mayors of the Les Sources RCM and the reeve, Hugues Grimard, who welcomed this recognition of the Les Sources RCM. It is important to note that the main city in the Les Sources RCM is Val‑des‑Sources, where half of the RCM's population resides. It has a population of 14,623 and covers an area of nearly 800 square kilometres. The Les Sources RCM is made up of seven municipalities: Danville, Ham‑Sud, Saint‑Adrien, Saint‑Camille, Saint‑Georges‑de‑Windsor, Val‑des‑Sources and Wotton.
It is important to note that in 1983, the RCM was known as L'Or-Blanc RCM. It was later renamed the Asbestos RCM, and has been known as Les Sources RCM since 2006. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the mayors of each of these municipalities. I would like to acknowledge Martine Satre, mayor of Danville, Serge Bernier, mayor of Ham-Sud, François Pinard, mayor of Saint-Camille, Émilie Windsor, mayor of Saint-Adrien, René Perreault, mayor of Saint-Georges-de-Windsor, Hugues Grimard, mayor of the Town of Val-des-Sources and reeve of the RCM, and lastly, Jocelyn Dion, mayor of Wotton.
It was a privilege to present this project to all the mayors and to give citizens the opportunity to identify with their electoral district. For the record, I ran for office as an MNA in 2016. I was going door-to-door in the municipality of Lyster, which is at the far end of my provincial riding. People told me I was not in the right riding, that I was in the Arthabaska riding. At the time, the Arthabaska riding included all 11 municipalities of L'Érable RCM. That is when I realized that people in L'Érable RCM did not feel a sense of connection to the riding. As a result, on June 9, 2017, I introduced Bill 896 in the Quebec National Assembly to replace the name of the Arthabaska riding with Arthabaska-L'Érable. It took much longer there than it did here. On June 5, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 896, aimed at changing the name of the Arthabaska riding to Arthabaska-L'Érable.
People may tell me that changing a riding's name is not a priority for either the riding or the House of Commons. I want to assure everyone that the number one concern for all elected officials right now is obviously the cost of living, gas, rent and groceries. These concerns fill our days here. However, while other matters may be less pressing, they also involve changes that we need to take this opportunity to make.
I want to assure people that just because I worked on the riding name change bill does not mean that I am ignoring other matters of critical importance to the people of Richmond—Arthabaska, a riding that I hope will soon be known as Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources. I also work for all Canadians.
I know that at the moment, Canadians have a lot more important concerns on their minds than a riding's name change. I want to assure people once again that members elected to the House spend their days working to improve Canadians' quality of life and give them some breathing room. However, we can also work on matters of a more technical nature. I consider this bill a bill of principle, of representation. I see it as making a correction on the riding's behalf to ensure that the region is properly represented.
The Les Sources RCM went through some rough times when the mine closed. Economically, things got a lot harder. The Les Sources RCM is now experiencing a period of significant economic development and is undergoing a major economic resurgence. Now seems like the perfect time to include Val-des-Sources in a new riding name: Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources.
I will stop there. If any of my colleagues have questions about the proposed name change for my riding, I would be happy to answer them.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his overview of the history of his riding and the various name changes over the years. I can recall that at one time the riding was Richmond—Wolfe, from 1988 until 1997.
Could the member explain the name Richmond—Wolfe and why that was changed to Richmond—Arthabaska following redistribution in 1996?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows the riding's history well. Unfortunately, I have to admit that I honestly do not know why it used to be called Richmond—Wolfe.
What I do know is that its current name, Richmond—Arthabaska, naturally represents the RCM of Arthabaska, which is part of the riding, and the municipality of Richmond, which is at the edge of my riding. However, the part at the centre of my riding, the Les Sources RCM, is not adequately represented.
That is why we are asking to change the name of my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his explanations in support of changing the name of his constituency. He was very eloquent and convincing.
I would like to turn to another part of the bill. I know that this was not the main focus of his speech, but nevertheless, the bill contains measures designed to counter an unfortunate trend we are seeing. We saw it in Terrebonne. I am of course talking about the longest ballot committee, which aims to put a very large number of candidates on the ballot.
This worries us. While those people may have good intentions, what they are ultimately doing is making Elections Canada's job harder. I am worried about people who are illiterate, because I represented many illiterate people when I was a legal aid lawyer. I think that when these people are faced with incredibly long ballots, it hinders their ability to exercise their right to vote.
Does my colleague agree with this part of the bill? Will the Conservative Party be able to work with us to ensure that the bill moves forward as quickly as possible so that, perhaps in a future by-election, we avoid a repeat of what happened in Terrebonne?
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I share the same concern about the length of ballots. The incredibly long ballots are a pressure tactic. In the end, Elections Canada decided that voters would have to write in the candidate's name to cast their vote. I share my colleague's concerns. We will have a chance to discuss this when the bill is being studied.
However, I want my intervention today to stay focused on changing the riding name from Richmond—Arthabaska to Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources to better represent all the residents in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, soon to be known as Richmond—Arthabaska—Val-des-Sources, hopefully, for his speech. I would just like to know where he got the idea and why he is proposing this change.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the riding of Richmond—Arthabaska, we see that it encompasses 39 municipalities, including all seven municipalities in the Les Sources RCM. The name of the Arthabaska RCM is clearly represented, but not all of the municipalities in that RCM are in my riding. I think adding Val‑des Sources is a way of correcting a historical error, since all the municipalities in the Les Sources RCM are in my riding.
[English]
This bill that has been put before the House by the government House leader is intended to strengthen our democratic process and the election process in Canada. I am certainly glad that there seems to be widespread support for it from throughout the House. I will focus my comments on the changes to the Elections Act.
I am very content with the riding name Kingston and the Islands. It goes back quite a way in my riding, to former Progressive Conservative Flora MacDonald, Edgar Benson and much further back than that.
The bill, and in particular the changes to the legislation as it relates to our elections, would implement recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Elections Canada, and it would reintroduce and expand on the measures that were in the original Bill C-65, which died on the Order Paper in 2025.
There are five main components to the bill that I will speak to briefly. The first is with respect to the protections for elections. We have heard others speak in the House already about the long ballot, and we are dealing with that issue. As the member who spoke previously said, this seems to be from a good place in terms of people trying to protest and make their voice heard on a particular issue they are trying to advance, which is why so many names are being put on the ballot. At the same time, I think there are other ways to do that and to advocate for change, whatever that might be.
I am glad to see that we would change the legislation to require only one nomination form, and each candidate would have to have their own official agent. Doing this would, in my opinion, significantly reduce the number of additional names being put on a ballot. At the end of the day, what this really comes down to is making the democratic process as easy as possible, while still allowing as many people as possible to run who justifiably are doing it for the right reasons, namely to be elected, not just as a way of protesting government policy or legislation.
Some of the other protections in the bill would include setting new rules with respect to foreign influence, bribery, misleading publications, etc., to apply year-round. There would be new offences: knowingly spreading false information to disrupt or affect an election, tampering with computer systems to disrupt elections, and false information on nomination papers. All these offences would be extended to outside Canada as well.
The second part of the legislation would focus on protections for leadership and nomination contests, in particular, extending election period offences, be they foreign influence, bribery, impersonation, misleading publications, or unauthorized computer use, etc., to leadership and nomination contests as well.
I think this is really important. One thing we have heard a lot about in recent years, and I can recall this from my time sitting on the procedure and House affairs committee, is the lax rules that exist at the nomination contest level. Some nomination contests can get quite heated and have a lot of political participation. It is critically important that we make sure participation is kept domestic and is not influenced by foreign actors, so I am very glad to see strengthening around that.
The third area that the bill would attempt to tackle is stronger political financing rules. It would ban anonymous or untraceable contributions, such as cryptocurrencies, prepaid cards, money orders and things of that nature. It would also ensure that third parties could use contributions only from Canadian citizens or permanent residents, or that their funds are not greater than 10% of annual revenue. It would also expand bans on foreign contributions and foreign-provided property or services and extend foreign funding prohibitions to leadership contests.
The fourth area the bill attempts to strengthen is enforcement tools. It would expand who can be investigated, including conspirators, accessories and counsellors. It would broaden offences to include attempts, conspiracies and counselling. Also, it would expand the administrative monetary penalties, which I think is extremely important, for individuals from $1,500 to $25,000 and for entities from $5,000 to $100,000. This is very important because if the penalties can just be seen as a cost of doing business, then they are not going to be effective tools of deterrence or proper penalization. I am very glad to see that the bill also includes that.
In addition, there would be higher penalties for foreign-funded third party violations. The bill would give new powers in this regard, to compel testimony, documents and preservation orders. It would allow for MOUs with federal agencies in co-operation with international bodies and would expand prohibitions on foreign entities conducting regular activities.
The fifth and final area where the bill attempts to create safeguards is physical security and privacy protection. It would remove the five-day advance notice requirement for regulated fundraising events. Post-event reports would list only municipalities and provinces. The returning officer's home address would no longer be published. Parties would have to meet criteria to access the preliminary voters list. Also, it would raise reimbursable personal security expenses for candidates to $3,250. Again, this is very important. One of the unfortunate realities of the democratic process today is that candidates need to think more about their personal security and employing and contracting people to assist with that. Knowing that would be reimbursable is extremely important. It would allow for people to take those matters extremely seriously and have the proper resources they need.
Finally, in regard to strengthening those, there would be new privacy obligations for political parties. It would include stronger safeguards for personal information, mandatory breach response steps, ensuring third party processors meet equivalent standards, an annual meeting with the Chief Electoral Officer on privacy, and prohibitions on misleading individuals about data use, selling data or disclosing it improperly.
To summarize, I would say that a number of the measures, in particular, the five themes I touched on today, would contribute significantly to strengthening our democracy and the election process. We know that during an election, it is very easy to overlook things or not pay as much attention to various things that might be going on with respect to foreign interference, etc. Knowing that these things would be treated seriously, and that those responsible have the right tools in their hands to deal with things as they are happening, is extremely important. It speaks volumes to ensuring that our democratic process and, in particular, the electoral process are upheld.
I will again say that I am encouraged by the fact that I am hearing many in the House in agreement with this. I hope we can pass this quickly, send it to committee, take care of any necessary amendments, if there are any, and then have it come back to the House so we can vote on it, make sure it is in place and give those responsible for executing the legislation ample time to prepare to do that prior to the next election.
I look forward to any questions.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of the amendments relate to actions of the longest ballot committee, and the bill is proposing to restrict the ability of pranksters, which I am going to call them, on the longest ballot committee to interfere with our election processes.
One of the steps Conservatives are suggesting is prohibiting a person from signing nominations of more than one prospective candidate. Another one is a prohibition on acting as an official agent for more than one person in one riding. This came up at the procedure and House affairs committee, and one of the questions was whether it would withstand a charter challenge. Section 3 of the charter has been given a very broad interpretation to allow people to participate in the electoral district.
I would ask for the member's comments on whether it would survive a charter challenge.
Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question. I do not know whether it would survive a charter challenge. I am not a lawyer, so I do not think it is my place to weigh in from a legal perspective, but I would go back to the premise of my hon. colleague's question. He talked about those who have basically found a loophole within the Canada Elections Act to be able to use a ballot as a way of protesting government policy, government legislation or the government's lack of providing whatever it is that they are looking for. I do not even want to talk about it, because then I would give it credit.
The point is that I think that is worth trying. If somebody feels it is not constitutionally compliant, they can exercise their right to try to challenge it, and then we would see the outcome of it. However, at face value, I do not see it as being a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I think the bill is really important. One of the things that was concerning me in the last election and prior is this whole issue of foreign interference. All of us, whether we are candidates or taxpayers, need to have confidence that the election system run by Elections Canada is concrete and solid. While people like to point fingers and say somebody cheated, and I always say, “No, that is not possible,” I think Bill C-25 would help make that happen.
I would like to hear from my hon. colleague. What are some of the other measures in Bill C-25 that would protect us, as candidates, and also taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The worst thing that can happen after a contest is for someone to say cheating was involved, so having robust legislation in place to make sure that elections are as fair as possible and that those who attempt to interfere, to obstruct and to do things that might be illegal are properly taken care of is absolutely critical in democracy, especially in the world we live in today. It is so easy for misinformation to get around, so being able to have all those tools, many of which I listed in my speech today, like the increased penalties and increased access to information to be able to go after possible actors, is extremely important.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I still wonder why the bill did not include restoring public funding for political parties, because this would ensure that parties are less controlled by the wealthy, by the donors with the deepest pockets. The Liberal Party pledged to restore this funding when it won in 2015. Now, that is added to the long list of broken promises.
Is it because, once in power, the Liberals realized that the billionaires had switched sides?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I cannot answer why it was not in there. I am not on the committee, so I have not been studying this, but I would agree with the member. The more we can take money out of politics, the better we can position ourselves to have a fair and open democracy. The reasons that may not have been the case would probably be better asked of the members on the committee, but I have always been a believer that taking money out of politics is a way to have a safer political system and safer elections that are more open and dependent on the people as opposed to money.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.
The strong and free elections act proposes targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect and secure Canada's elections by mitigating unduly long ballots, foreign interference and deepfakes; protecting nomination and leadership contests; closing channels for foreign funding; bolstering personal security measures; and strengthening federal political party privacy requirements. It gives me great pleasure to speak today about how these changes, as outlined in Bill C-25, would protect our democracy and support Canadians.
First, I would like to address the issue of long ballot protest tactics. In my riding of Carleton, we experienced an extraordinarily high number of candidates registered, not seriously to contest the election but to disrupt the process. These tactics create confusion for voters, lengthen ballots, slow down the voting process, place unnecessary strain on election workers and are not cost-free. Ultimately, they make our elections more costly.
During the 2025 federal election, the longest ballot committee in my riding of Carleton contributed 85 of the 91 candidates on the ballot. The ballot was so long that adjustments had to be made to voting procedures and vote counting in Carleton. The ballot itself was nearly 97 centimetres long, with two columns of names. Due to the longest ballot committee protest, constituents in Carleton faced unnecessary strain from the ballots, a significant financial burden was put on our local election systems, and election workers dealt with added pressure.
However, in the face of the longest ballot committee and its disruptive tactics, I am proud to state that in Carleton there was a staggering turnout of nearly 82% during the last election. That is testimony to the determination of voters in Carleton to vote, often waiting well over an hour. Personally, I waited an hour and a half to cast my ballot. While constituents in Carleton experienced the long ballot, it is also being exercised in other ridings, notably this past week in Terrebonne. It is hindering elections wherever it is taking place.
Elections should be accessible and an engaging process for Canadians to take part in. They should not become an ordeal that discourages people from going to the polls or volunteering to serve in our democracy. That is why Bill C-25 would take concrete steps to address this issue. Bill C-25 would prevent official agents from serving more than one candidate at the same time, which is a tactic that has been used to organize and sustain longest ballot committee campaigns.
Currently, candidates must collect 100 signatures from electors in the riding to be nominated. However, there are no limits on how many candidates an elector can sign for. This has allowed coordinated efforts to artificially inflate the number of candidates. Bill C-25 would change this and only allow electors to sign one nomination form. Those who attempt to sign multiple forms as part of a coordinated effort to manipulate the ballot could face penalties. These changes are practical, targeted and necessary. They would ensure that the nomination process reflects genuine democratic participation, not coordinated efforts to overwhelm the system.
Our elections must remain accessible, but they must also remain fair and functional. Bill C-25 would help strike that balance by protecting the integrity of the ballot and ensuring that voters determine the outcome of our elections. Bill C-25 would also allow us to detect and protect elections from foreign interference, disinformation and other potential threats to our democracy. Bill C-25 would further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections by ensuring electors are protected at all times against unlawful attempts to influence their vote, not only when elections are called. The bill would also ban sophisticated deepfakes of candidates intended to mislead voters.
It would also be against the law to tamper or interfere with computer systems to disrupt an election. All proposed and existing electoral crimes would be deemed illegal, whether or not they take place inside or outside Canada.
To combat foreign interference, Bill C-25 would give the commissioner the authority to reach out to other countries, through information-sharing agreements, to investigate suspected instances of foreign electoral interference. Also, the bill would add new privacy policy requirements for all federal political parties and new disclosure requirements in the event of a data breach. This is important because democracy depends on trust in fair and secure elections. If voters believe elections can be influenced by foreign interference or disinformation at home or abroad, it weakens confidence in the system. These measures would ensure that Canadians can make informed decisions based on accurate information.
Ultimately, the bill would strengthen the integrity of our elections and ensure that outcomes reflect the informed will of the people. The bill would close potential channels of foreign funding in the electoral process. This would protect nomination and leadership contests from threats, bribery and intimidation.
To prevent foreign money from entering our system, Bill C-25 would prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions from cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards and money orders for all their activities. This ban would extend the current ban on third parties using foreign funds for partisan activities during nomination contests and general elections to include leadership contests.
Bill C-25 would increase the fines that Elections Canada can impose on individuals and parties for violating the Canada Elections Act. The maximum penalty for an individual who breaks the law would rise from $1,500 to $25,000, while an organization's maximum fine would increase from $5,000 to $100,000. Outside the people or parties that are fined, anyone proven to have conspired with them or advised them could also be held accountable.
Today I have highlighted the importance of the strong and free elections act, as it would increase the integrity of Canadian democratic processes to ensure that our elections are fair and strong. As elections around the world are being subjected to new and evolving threats, the strong and free elections act would ensure that Canada's election laws continue to be properly enforced. Canada's democracy and electoral system are among the strongest and most stable in the world. The proposed changes under Bill C-25 would serve to further enforce Canada's already strong democracy.
Stronger investigative powers for the commissioner of Canada elections would enable more thorough investigations, fairer outcomes and greater accountability, which would reduce the burden on courts. Bill C-25 is about strengthening our democracy, ensuring the fairness of our elections and holding bad actors accountable. The bill would send a strong message. Canada is a resilient democracy. No bad actor, at home or abroad, will be allowed to interfere in our elections. Instead, Bill C-25 would uphold what this Parliament stands for: strong, free and fair elections decided by Canadians and for Canadians.
We are the true north, strong and free. That strength and freedom need to always be reflected in our elections and they will always be defended by our government. That is exactly what the strong and free elections act would achieve.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election, the member who just spoke accused his Conservative opponent of threatening to cut the public service should his opponent, who is also the leader of the Conservative Party, get elected.
The fanner of joyless news actually has more cuts in his riding than would have ever been anticipated any other way.
Could he let us know how many more of his constituents are going to be cut from the public service?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that very good-faith question. The Prime Minister has made it clear in the budget that we need to spend less on operations in order to invest more. The vast majority of changes in the public service will be through voluntary retirement and attrition. The member knows that very well.
She also knows very well that the Leader of the Opposition, the current member for Battle River—Crowfoot, would have made much deeper cuts. I hear frequently from commentators that we are not going far enough. I have consistently stood for the public service. I continue to do so and people can depend on that from the member for Carleton.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised the issue of ballots getting very long thanks to the efforts of a certain activist group.
The Bloc Québécois will support this bill so that it can be studied in committee. The bill proposes various measures to limit the possibility of having very long ballots. They are detrimental to everyone except perhaps this group, which gains attention as a result. In particular, the bill proposes to make it an offence for a candidate to provide false or misleading information on a nomination form. It also proposes imposing penalties when signatures are obtained on a nomination form before a candidate has been identified. We agree with that.
I would like my colleague's opinion on another measure, the one establishing an offence to deter a person from encouraging an elector to sign more than one nomination form. We have some concerns about this. What does my colleague think?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we encourage all good-faith candidates to step forward and participate in our democracy. I think it is also very important that all members take every opportunity to improve civic literacy in this country. I would always support a good-faith candidate running, whether they are running for an official party or as an independent.
However, there are loopholes that have allowed a long ballot to overwhelm our elections process. For the health of our democracy, we need to close those.
Mr. Speaker, any time we talk about making elections changes, there are folks who express concern that it might restrict their ability to participate fully in our democracy.
Can the member comment on the safeguards present in this proposed legislation that would ensure we are striking the right balance between protecting our democracy and making sure it is fully accessible?
Mr. Speaker, I think that getting democracy right, as with so many other things we deal with in this House, is about striking the right balance. While we protect the rights of candidates to run, we also must protect the rights of voters to vote. I do not have a specific example for the long ballot, but I know that people who have vision disabilities or other disabilities have more difficulty dealing with such a monumentally big ballot. It is not reasonable to expect people to stand in line for multiple hours simply because we have made a process too burdensome.
I am confident that Bill C-25 would strike the right balance. We can explore it further in committee—
Order. I am afraid the member's time has expired.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this place and speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. There is a lot to look at in this piece of legislation. The bill contains many supportable and, frankly, some long-overdue measures. It includes long-called-for amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deter tactics like those used by the longest ballot committee, amendments that the Conservative Party has been asking for for a long time. It would strengthen protections against foreign interference, including in leadership and nomination contests. It would make changes to the third party regime as well, which we believe is an improvement to the current regime.
However, there is a stumbling block here, which is that the Conservative Party has been raising issues around foreign interference for years. This is not new. We have known about this. The government has known about this. Members of our caucus and former candidates and their families have been targets of foreign interference and we have been talking about this for years, yet the Liberals tuned us out. They refused to take us seriously and now here we are. I welcome the government's legislation to strengthen our electoral system, but I ask this: Why did it take so long?
For instance, the Liberal Party of Canada stood by for years while foreign interference literally ran rampant in our country. Frankly, it still does. Nothing has changed. This is a monumental issue facing our country and the Liberals have dragged their feet in dealing with it. I hope this bill will turn the tide on this generational issue in our nation, but I have some doubts. Why do I have these doubts? It is because it has taken so much and so long to implement a strategy to bring about this needed change. Conservatives have long called for strengthened protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests where interference has proven to be pervasive.
Foreign interference is a serious issue, one that undermines the integrity of our electoral system and threatens to harm and does harm Canadians, especially those who belong to various diaspora groups all across our country. The government, the Liberals, including the Prime Minister, have been incredibly lackadaisical on the issue and I have a hard time believing in their sudden change of heart and sincerity.
I will use the example of Paul Chiang. Mr. Chiang was the Liberal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville who was, up until the end of March last year, the Liberal candidate in last April's election. Chiang, a former police officer, suggested to Chinese-language media at a news conference in January 2025 that people could hand over a political opponent of his, the Conservative candidate Joe Tay, to the PRC consulate in Toronto for a cash reward offered by the Hong Kong police. Mr. Tay, who was the Conservative candidate in Don Valley North, already had a bounty on his head and an arrest warrant issued by Hong Kong for making, of all things, pro-democracy comments here in Canada. According to the CBC, this bounty was worth nearly $200,000 Canadian.
As if these comments were not bad enough, Mr. Tay testified at the procedure and House affairs committee in December 2025, a committee that I have sat on for a long time now, that his home was surveilled by a vehicle parked outside his driveway during the campaign. He said that his volunteers were victims of intimidation and harassment on the campaign trail, particularly by a man who followed them around in a trench coat. Tay also testified that the RCMP informed him that it would not be safe for him to continue campaigning. Imagine that, a Canadian in Canada running for political office and the top police force in our country informing that candidate that he should withdraw from campaigning because of his own safety concerns triggered by an aggressive foreign government.
Mr. Tay went on to tell the committee that as his life was exponentially more in danger because of “a direct...[Chinese Communist Party] threat to our democracy through the election, and the MPs or the leaders were promoting it at the same time, it almost gave approval to the people who wanted to hurt me. It was like a green light.”
I agree with Mr. Tay. It is almost as though the interference was sanctioned by the governing party of the day. What is even more concerning about this is the fact that the Prime Minister stood by Paul Chiang for several days and protected his candidate instead of doing the right thing. This was politics and party over principle and national security. At a press conference in Vaughan, the Prime Minister called Mr. Chiang a “person of integrity” who had served his community for 25 years. He also said that Chiang had his confidence and dismissed the error because Chiang himself had family in Hong Kong. He accepted Chiang's apology and was ready to move on.
The Prime Minister was ready to move forward with Chiang on the ballot when Mr. Chiang was actively participating in foreign interference. That is not serious leadership. Paul Chiang eventually had to withdraw from the race after enough pressure was applied, but why did it take so long, and why was so much pressure needed to do the right thing? That should really alarm everyone in this chamber and, indeed, all Canadians. There were seemingly no repercussions. Not only did the Prime Minister fail to take the moral high ground, by wilfully and knowingly defending his candidate, but Paul Chiang was even welcomed back at the Liberal Party's recent policy convention in Montreal last weekend. Well, that is a little bit telling, is it not? Since this fiasco, the Prime Minister also cultivated deeper ties with the People's Republic of China, despite its many various violations of human rights at home and abroad, raising eyebrows everywhere.
Meanwhile, the current Liberal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville is fighting at committee with human rights advocates over whether the Chinese Communist Party uses forced labour, suggesting that if someone has not witnessed forced labour or slavery in China personally, then it must not exist. These are very strange comments.
A few days after these strange and shocking comments, the Prime Minister attended a Liberal Party fundraiser that was co-hosted by the member for Markham—Unionville. The Prime Minister praised the “values” of that member, saying he is “a results-oriented individual” and is “choosing the path that creates opportunities for Canadians”. That is unbelievable. The Prime Minister not only praised that member, but he also refused to clarify his position on human rights and the People's Republic of China. Canadians deserve to know his real position.
We know the Prime Minister did not raise the issue of human rights on his trip to Beijing in January with his new MP for Markham—Unionville, and why not? By refusing to take a stand, the Prime Minister is abandoning Canada's human rights commitments and putting our people further at risk by tying us closer to a Communist government that seeks to harm our citizens and meddle in our elections. This is a threatening foreign government that has meddled in our elections and has sought to harm our people, even putting two of them in jail. Why has it taken so long to address this?
One riding, that of Markham—Unionville, had two candidates. They were Paul Chiang, who encouraged the kidnapping and potential deportation of a Canadian citizen who already had a bounty on him issued by a hostile foreign regime, and the current sitting member of that same riding, who defended China's human rights track record at committee. What has the Prime Minister done? Well, he has protected, defended, stood by and praised both of these individuals. Both were at his party's convention last weekend. He has cozied up to the Communist regime in China, indicating that this new relationship is part of his idea of a new world order, yet we expect him to lead the charge to protect Canada from foreign interference. He has had several chances, and he has blown them.
Conservatives have been speaking out about this issue for years. The Liberals have done nothing, and their track record suggests that they are completely indifferent to this issue. At the procedure and House affairs committee, we also heard from Nathalie Drouin, the intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and a member of the critical election incident public protocol panel, as a witness on our foreign interference study. She emphasized time and again that the 45th general election was not compromised and that the election was carried out securely and with confidence. That is what we would expect, but what Mrs. Drouin refused to answer is to what degree the election was interfered or tampered with. Canadians are still left guessing how deeply and how badly.
Now, no one in this House doubts the overall outcome of the election results. The Liberals won a minority government. That is not what we are talking about. What I am talking about is the fact that the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister refused to disclose how many Paul Chiang- and Joe Tay-type incidents there have actually been. Were other candidates targeted? Were other volunteers, candidates or families stopped, watched or intimidated?
We do not know, because the person entrusted to be the watchdog will not say, and I guess now we will never know as she has been made the ambassador to France, a political position offered to a bureaucrat, which is nice work if one can get it. This is very concerning.
We know that this has happened in the past. My former colleague for Steveston—Richmond East, Mr. Kenny Chiu, lost his seat in 2021 and immediately brought up concerns around foreign interference from the government of the People's Republic of China. Our leader at the time, immediately after the 2021 election, went public with concerns around foreign interference. No one, and many of them are still here on the government benches, took us seriously, but look at us now. Some six or seven years later, we are still talking about this.
The buck does not stop with the PRC regime in China. Unfortunately, it carries on with Iran. There are currently up to 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members living in Canada right now. These are people who belong to the same Iranian government that killed 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents in January 2020. It took the same Liberal government over four years to list the IRGC as a terrorist group, and to date, it has deported only one of the 700 operatives living in Canada. There are foreign terrorists conducting illegal terrorist business in Canada at a time when thousands of Persian Canadians are protesting for freedom and the fall of the ayatollah. The Liberal government has shown, through the deportation of only one IRGC operative, not only that it cannot keep Canadians safe from foreign interference and terrorism but also that it is shockingly late to the serious issue of foreign interference.
Why are these terrorist operatives still here? Why are they allowed to enter the country in the first place? These are questions Conservatives have asked the government time and again, and we have never been given a compelling response. Global News reported, on April 2, that an IRGC official lied to get into Canada by using false names. He even sued to have his mother allowed to immigrate to Canada. Why is he still here? These are foreign operatives here in our country to do harm, to influence, to manipulate, to raise money illegally and to intimidate diaspora communities. They are not here to contribute to Canadian society. This is a national security threat and a serious violation of foreign interference principles. Conservatives have proposed that all IRGC terrorists be expelled from Canada, but the Liberals do not agree and simply refuse to act.
I am sorry, but I cannot even believe this is a debate. I cannot believe I have to utter these words here in the House of Commons. I cannot believe that I have to say that common sense would suggest that foreign terrorists should not be allowed to live freely and openly and do their business in our country. I cannot believe that there is anybody in the House who would disagree with that. It is absurd. The government has a mandate to protect the people of Canada, and it will not take the first step forward in doing so. It is shameful.
Conservatives have been here from the beginning, advocating in this very chamber and in committee for stronger safeguards and concrete action to prevent these very issues from happening. The government lauded its talking points and communication lines. We warned of issues arising because of its inability or unwillingness to act, but here we are speaking to the legislation on the same issues we have been talking about over and over again for years.
Why has it taken so long? The Prime Minister cannot bring himself to condemn, much less punish, a candidate who encourages the kidnapping and deportation of the political candidate of his political adversary or a new MP who defends China's use of forced and slave labour. The Liberals are allowing IRGC terrorists to enter, stay in and live freely in our country. They will not expel them. However, they expect the opposition to believe they are serious about foreign interference now. Come on, Mr. Speaker; give me a break.
Foreign interference and the government's response to it are eroding Canadian democracy. As the Macdonald-Laurier Institute published this past January, “When Chinese interference operations in Canada go unaddressed, regional partners draw conclusions about whether Canada can be counted on as a serious security partner”.
That means our allies are no longer taking us seriously, and it means they are going to be reluctant to share information and intelligence with us. That puts Canadians at risk. This is not behaviour conducive to a responsible government. If the government does not take this issue seriously, how can we expect our allies or, for that matter, even our adversaries to take us seriously?
That is not all. Liberals' standing on the sideline, watching as the Conservatives lead the charge on strengthening our elections, does not stop with foreign interference; it also speaks to the lead we have taken on dealing with the longest ballot committee, whose members are nothing more than self-indulgent limelight seekers. The Conservative Party has long called for amendments to the Canada Elections Act to deter the actions of the longest ballot committee. We welcome the amendments made by the government, but I still question why it has taken so long.
We have called for actions to counter the disruptions of this group, which seeks not only to disrupt but also to manipulate and harm our elections by seemingly targeting very specific ridings. Its members cannot claim to be defenders of democracy when they frustrate voters and poll workers, making a mockery of our electoral system to benefit themselves.
It is interesting. I have been here for seven elections. This is the seventh term that I have served in the House of Commons. For the first three or four, I had to come up with a $1,000 deposit that was refunded to me if I acted in accordance with the Canada Elections Act, behaved as a responsible candidate and earned a reasonable number of votes. This is to prevent frivolous candidacies. It was put in place for a reason.
The individual who challenged that in court in 2017 just happens to be the same person who is now the head of the longest ballot committee. This shows us that this is not some spontaneous thing that has happened. This has been a well-thought-out, orchestrated attempt to make a mockery of our electoral process. It is fine for a protester to run in an election and put their name on a ballot, but it is not right to turn the ballot itself into the protest. This is a ridiculous set of logic.
What is disheartening about it is that the government of the day had every opportunity to appeal that decision and protect the integrity of our electoral system, but it did not. It is amazing, the things that the government will actually fight in courts and the things it lets slide. On opening up access to medical assistance in dying, the government said it would not challenge that in court. On an unlawful use or invocation of the Emergencies Act, the government said it was going to take that all the way to the Supreme Court. This is just another example of Liberals not understanding the consequences of the decisions, or lack of decisions, that they make.
Now we are scrambling to find ways to circumvent the longest ballot committee's protest using the ballot itself as the protest. Those changes are now in this piece of legislation, requiring more poll workers, more scrutineering, more effort and more expense. It is all of the above. All the government had to do was appeal that decision and explain to Canadians why a responsible government would protect the integrity of our electoral system, yet here we are again.
In conclusion, I will just say this: It has been too long since we have had responsible decisions made in this place to protect the integrity of our institutions and the Canada Elections Act, to make sure that not only the overall results of the election are valid but also that the results, in every single constituency, every single electoral district, are accurate and that, without interference, the voters' will is manifest in that process. The nominations cannot be suspect; the leadership cannot be suspect, and the elections cannot be suspect.
I look forward to the bill's coming to the procedure and House affairs committee.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear your commitment to dealing with foreign interference and maintaining our national security.
I would like to hear an explanation as to why the leader of the official opposition refuses to seek top security clearance so he can be briefed on these matters that you care so much about.
I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep asking this question and getting the same answer.
The reality is that the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition has had the security clearance. It is not that he cannot get the security clearance. He has been a minister of the Crown and bears the title of “honourable”. He could certainly get the security clearance if he wanted to, but getting it also comes with the condition that one cannot talk about certain things.
It is not in our nation's best interest nor in the best interest of our democratic system for the government to release information to its political adversary and know that the political adversary cannot talk about those things that the government provides to the leader of the opposition. It runs counterintuitive to the nature of the system we have designed. Anybody with a basic knowledge of civics, including Thomas Mulcair, who says the same thing, would know that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it took 70 meetings to finally secure an independent public inquiry. My question is very simple: With Bill C-25, does my colleague believe that this independent public inquiry was a good thing and that it will enable us to make changes? We have worked very hard and I believe that, today, we will be able to hold fair and democratic elections. What does my colleague think?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from the Bloc. I have to say that very carefully as an Alberta MP. We worked very hard in the previous Parliament on the foreign interference study. I will say this at risk of our friendship: She was a very good advocate in defending Canada and the interests of our electoral system.
I did not talk about this in my speech, but it is another proof point about why it is always so hard to get the government to do the right thing. The Conservatives, the Bloc and others were calling for the public inquiry, and we literally had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to do it.
Madam Justice Hogue gave her findings, there was a lot of examination and cross-examination, and we raised the issue in the public conscience of the nation. This does good things for Canada. Canadians are now more aware of it. I also think that the whole process put more pressure on the task forces responsible for monitoring and reporting. There were reports, finally, in the last election, for which they went to the public instead of just running around gathering all the information and intelligence and sharing it with nobody.
We have gotten to the step now where we have a bit of public reporting, at least. I still think it is not enough, but we are making progress, and the member can hold her head high. She had something to do with it.
Mr. Speaker, we hear the Liberals talk about foreign interference, but it was under the Liberals that Beijing interfered in the 2019 and 2021 elections, while they turned a blind eye. It is also under the Liberals that Beijing has engaged in transnational repression activities, including operating police stations and putting a bounty, as the member referenced, on Joe Tay, a candidate in the 2025 election. Now the Prime Minister, in his infinite wisdom, has signed a security law enforcement co-operation agreement with Beijing's Ministry of Public Security, the very entity responsible for transnational repression activities in Canada.
I would be interested in the member's comments on that.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a lot of farmers in central Alberta. There are people who grow pork, canola and so on. We are all in favour of trading commodities, and we understand that we have to trade and have to find markets to access. That does not mean we have to give access back. It took a long time just to get the government to keep Huawei out of our network systems. We were way behind all our Five Eyes partners.
There is something in the Liberal Party of Canada that means that it cannot and will not bring itself to stand up to the Communist regime, a regime that uses forced labour and slave labour, has human rights violations and steals organs from its citizens. In this country, if the only influence one has is to take a firm stand on principles, the Prime Minister has let us down and has let the good people under the thumb of the PRC down. It is actually shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his institutional knowledge, as I am a relatively new MP.
If the bill were to go back to committee, and if it were decided that some things were proven to be wrong, specifically the removal of the $1,000 deposit, would that be something we could put back in to help eliminate some of the problems we already have?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very common-sense question. Unfortunately the answer is that the window for the government to appeal the decision has already come and gone. Now we would have to use other mechanisms that would require us to basically say that Parliament is not going to listen to the courts, and we all know that this does not happen very often in Canada.
Instead we are going to look at other methods, such as making sure that nominees cannot sign more than one form for a candidate. We heard lots of different proposals, such as that a financial agent could not be the agent for more than one person in a particular constituency. I expect we are going to be in a tit-for-tat with the longest ballot committee for quite some time. As I mentioned in my comments, it is limelight seekers who are doing this. They think this is good fun and good sport.
Eventually, I think, we are going to have to come back to deal with this in a way that makes it so we protect the integrity of our system, but the Liberals are not there yet. They are going to run up costs and try to find every way possible to avoid recognizing the fact that they made a mistake in not appealing the court decision. Eventually we are going to have to get back to a place where something like that is looked at in order to prevent frivolous candidates from being involved, because that actually undermines the integrity of the system.
Every member of the House agrees that there should be as few barriers as possible to entering into the debate and to running for elected office in Canada. I do not think anybody disagrees with that, but if someone cannot find 100 people to sign their form and give them $10 each, there is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Ponoka—Didsbury's speech was inspiring. It is a pleasure serving with him on the committee that studied the bill.
We know that a foreign influence registry is going to be set up. We have appointed a commissioner for that now. I wonder if my colleague could comment on how viable that commission will be now that we have a Prime Minister who is willing to enter into a security-sharing agreement with the police authorities in Beijing, a regime that at one time he said was an existential threat to Canada's security.
How is that going to interplay with the foreign influence registry?
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is asking me to explain Liberal logic, and that is going to take a lot more than 45 seconds.
To circle that square is an amazing thing. My colleague is exactly right. The Prime Minister said that the greatest threat to Canada and its democracy was the PRC regime in China. However, we have seen him take the candidate from Markham—Unionville, immediately enter into this agreement, and call it a new world order, while at the same time the Liberals were dragging their heels on appointing the foreign registry commissioner. The commissioner has come before the committee and basically said that all he is going to do is put names on a list and watch them. I do not think that is going to do all the things we had hoped for, but it is a step in the right direction.
We are going to keep the pressure up because it is only Conservatives who actually care about the integrity of this institution and care about the values and the traditions Canada has. We are going to fight every day to maintain that here in Ottawa.
[Translation]
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay; Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Justice.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the good people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry in eastern Ontario. I am proud each time I have the opportunity to take the floor to share some perspectives on the issues before us here in the House of Commons.
Today we are dealing with an important piece of legislation, Bill C-25. I want to start with a bit of a backgrounder when it comes to amendments to the Canada Elections Act, my personal passion for it and why it is so important to get this right.
I have had the pleasure of serving in the House for just a little over six years and have been on one parliamentary committee. I am not on a committee right now, but I served on the PROC committee in a few different iterations in time. It has a longer title: the procedure and House affairs committee. It was a real opportunity to learn a lot about the democratic process. If Bill C-25 is successful at second reading, which I believe it will be, it will be referred to that committee for further study. It is where witnesses would come forward and where certain amendments could be made to further improve the legislation.
The PROC committee deals with the Canada Elections Act. I was involved in riding redistribution, which is an important part of our democratic process every 10 years. PROC deals as well with issues of foreign interference, which I will be talking about in my 20 minutes here on the floor today.
PROC also deals with the relationship with the Conflict of Interest Act for members to educate themselves on and abide by, the Ethics Commissioner, the lobbying commissioner, of course the administration of this wonderful place that we call the House of Commons, working with the Speaker and with the Board of Internal Economy to make sure that this place functions on a day-to-day basis so we can do what is most important in our jobs: represent our constituents from 343 ridings all across the country.
Election legislation and getting it right is also a bit of a personal passion of mine. By way of background, again, I have participated in this myself. I will be 39 years old this year, but I have been in elected office for 20 years, which is kind of hard to believe. I started off at the ripe young age of 18 in my first election. I say I was broken in gently into politics. I ran in three municipal elections, so I am very familiar with that process, having been a candidate in 2006, 2010 and 2014, and also with the important work it takes from the clerks of the municipality.
In my case, it was in the Township of North Dundas, which was under the service at the time of the now retired clerk, Jo-Anne McCaslin. I have a real appreciation and respect for the people at the local level. Actually, at the municipal level, believe it or not, there is phone and Internet voting. There are no paper ballots available in the municipality of North Dundas. It has done it through online or telephone voting, which increased participation in municipal elections and was effective in doing that.
I have also had the honour of being a candidate on a ballot three times at the federal level, in 2019, 2021 and 2025. With respect to the legislation before us, being a candidate is important. I valued being nominated as a Conservative candidate in Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry.
Actually, one of the best experiences I had for understanding our Elections Act and the workings of Elections Canada was serving as a campaign manager, which I had the honour of doing six times. I was campaign manager three times provincially for my good friend and former provincial colleague, Jim McDonnell, who is now happily retired in Williamstown, and I had the honour of serving as campaign manager three times for my predecessor, Guy Lauzon, in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, as it was known at the time.
Serving as a campaign manager gave me a great opportunity to work with the local returning office and the official agent, or chief financial officer, call it what we will, for the campaign process. Being involved in our electoral district association helped me understand the local aspect of politics and working with volunteers to bring a campaign together.
It is absolutely essential we get the legislation right. It is a bill about the Canada Elections Act, a piece of legislation that is now nearly 26 years old. It does need some modernization to keep up with the times. As we talk about ballot integrity, the threat of foreign interference and the roles of new technologies and the challenges those bring in terms of security for our democratic process, it is absolutely vital that we get it right. There is an internal dynamic to getting this right that we are responsible for in the House, as well as providing the proper resources and legislation to Elections Canada, from its CEO right down to the frontline poll workers.
As Canadians go into the voting booth, we want to make sure that we provide a process and resources that make it as smooth and as easy as possible to vote, so that when a Canadian goes in, there are poll workers there, the ballot process is fair and there is an integrity to the process so that Canadians can have confidence, and they should, at the federal level in Canada. We have a nationalized election system that has paper ballots. They are done the old-fashioned way, the way I like it. On election night, in tens of thousands of polling locations across the country, with tens of thousands of workers, those ballot boxes are opened and advance poll votes are counted by hand on paper, the way it should be at the federal level. This ensures a smooth process, but a lot of work goes into that process, into the experience that the elector has when they walk into a voting location of having a smooth process. There is also the stuff behind the scenes, and the political financing that we have in this country. It is important to get it right and make sure that we have that.
We owe a great deal of gratitude to the poll workers who step up in every one of our communities and ridings across the country. From those who serve at the local polling station on election day or in an advance poll, to the staff who work at the local returning office in 343 ridings across the country, they have a very difficult and intense job to do. It is intense in the fact that they have to ramp up and conduct an election. Elections can be longer, but most have typically been 36 days. Sometimes, depending on the scenario and the setup, there has been a runway or a ramp-up to let people know to expect an election, but in the business we are in, we could have a snap election called at any time over the course of a mandate, so we have poll workers, staff and returning officers in our communities who could ramp up and do a very intense job in a short period of time.
They have to ramp up and get a returning office. They have to staff up that office. They have to recruit hundreds and hundreds of advance poll and election day workers: not only recruit them, but train them, do the HR for all those processes and make sure they are equipped with the skills needed to have a smooth voting process. They have to take the nominations in for local candidates and go through and vet the signatures for nominations that go through, and then there is the post-election vote validation process. To do all of that in 36 days, which is generally the election period, and to do it times 343 ridings across the country, is quite the job.
The geography of our country makes the job even more unique in the need to get it right. I have been interested in this, in my time on the procedure and House affairs committee, when we studied reports of by-elections, general elections and the election process. What is difficult to do, in a country as vast as ours, is to not have the process be too cookie-cutter. We need to have regulation and we need to have structure, but we also need to make sure we understand the difference between ridings. Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry is a rural riding, but not as rural and remote as, for example, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories or Yukon. We then go all the way to, for example, Ottawa Centre or Vancouver Centre. We have some ridings that are a couple of square kilometres, and in some cases a riding is thousands of square kilometres. That is the geography of administering an election. The returning offices, the staff, the training, the distribution of ballots, all of these issues continue to come up, and we need to work on that to make sure that Elections Canada can give that feedback to the procedure and House affairs committee, give it back to us as parliamentarians, about the important work they do and what we need to do.
I just want to make a note as we talk about this legislation. I want to put this on the record, and, again, this is getting a bit nerdy in my personal passion. It is about what is not in this legislation, which has been proposed in previous attempts by the government and has been discussed as we look at ways of improving the voting process for Canadians. One thing that was not put in this piece of legislation is a change to the advance poll days and the number of hours for advance polls.
Why am I mentioning something that is not in the bill? Frankly, I am glad that it is not. Sometimes something looks good on paper, related to improving the democratic process, but there is an old saying that it does not matter how flat one makes a pancake; there are still two sides to it. There has been a push to increase the number of advance polling days, for example, when electors can cast their ballots in advance of election day. While on paper it sounds good to add a day or two or three to give Canadians more days to do it, it would come with logistical challenges that I have raised before at committee and will continue to raise. I am not saying I am completely opposed to any increase, do not get me wrong, but we have to make sure we hear from Elections Canada staff about the ability to do two things.
One is the ability to recruit workers. If we were to go from three or four days to six days of advance polls, we would have to have that same team working up to 10 hours a day. It is not just the hours that the polls are open. They need to report half an hour to an hour before. They are often there 15 minutes to half an hour after shutting down the location, driving back home, getting up the next morning and driving back to their polling location. I talked about rural and remote ridings, and some of those are very difficult to access and find workers for. To find somebody who is willing to give up three straight days for an advance poll is one thing. To have them give up four or six straight days, we would run into the ability to recruit effectively the number of staff, the tens of thousands of Canadians, who are needed to step forward to work for Elections Canada in these roles. That can be an unintended consequence.
The second thing, which can be difficult as well, and why I am glad changes to advance polls have not been made at this time, is the ability to secure venues. In those longer ranges of time, there may be other bookings at those church halls, community halls, schools, wherever the locations may be. We may feel it is great that we have added x number of days, but at the end of the day, what happens, particularly in rural communities, in my experience, is that driving to a local venue can take 10 or 15 minutes, but when one in a rural community is not available and people have to drive another 15 or 20 minutes, that starts to disenfranchise voters from casting a ballot.
We can say we mean well by adding more days, but all of a sudden, certain venues are not available, and we are actually making it more difficult for people to vote because Elections Canada cannot recruit enough staff, as I mentioned, or the closest regular voting locations may be not be available because of the increased period.
I apologize for the technicality on this issue, but I wanted to put that in Hansard and note my concern. Again, I am not opposed to increasing it in the future, but it certainly warrants more conversation. I am glad to see, as we debate the legislation before us, that it is not included at this time.
In this piece of legislation to amend the Canada Elections Act, there are various amendments and additions that would modernize several aspects. As mentioned, several of my Conservative colleagues here today are in support of this bill moving to the PROC committee for further study and to continue discussions on this. I will say, frankly, that Bill C-25 is a big improvement to changes to the Canada Elections Act compared with the last attempt, in Bill C-65.
Members may not remember from the last Parliament what Bill C-65 was by its number. It was the NDP-Liberal pension protection act. In the midst of a variety of changes the government was proposing in its coalition with the NDP, the Liberals were caught blatantly trying to benefit themselves by pushing the election day back a couple of weeks. For those who might lose out on having their pension vested by a couple of days, they moved it back. It was a very selfish move on their part, one that rightfully did not resonate with Canadians very well. That bill, thankfully, did not advance. It died on the Order Paper when the last election was called. It was not a serious attempt by the Liberals and, at that time, their coalition partners, the New Democrats, to meaningfully, respectfully and with integrity make the various amendments and additions to the Canada Elections Act that are needed.
There are several provisions in here that we can get behind. For example, there are new offences that would be added to this legislation. Before, there were no specific offences in the Canada Elections Act for intentionally spreading false election information, tampering with election computer systems, or using AI and deepfakes to impersonate. Now all three of those would be criminal offences. We have also added an extraterritorial application, so offences committed outside Canada would be captured and charges could be pursued in the event of nefarious actions by players outside Canada.
Anonymous contributions would be banned. Before, cryptocurrency, money orders and prepaid payment products were permissible methods to make a donation to political entities or third parties. This loophole has now been closed. All three would be prohibited as contribution methods, closing anonymous and hard-to-trace funding channels.
There would be changes to personal information disclosures. One of the things I did not know, until the suggestion came up to change it, was that returning officers' full home addresses were published in the Canada Gazette. Preliminary voters lists were distributed broadly to any party that requested them. Now, the listed address for the returning officer would be limited to the municipality and province. Voters lists would be restricted to qualifying parties only, namely those with House representation, those with prior candidates running again or those that had candidates in two-thirds of ridings in the last election. This is to make sure that data and that information would be protected as much as possible.
On foreign interference, here is an interesting thing we talked about. To combat foreign interference, third parties were banned from using foreign contributions for regulated activities, but they were not banned from making those contributions. Leadership contests had no foreign funding restrictions. In the legislation we have before us, foreign entities would now be banned from contributing to third parties at all. Foreign funding would be banned from leadership contests, and foreign corporate activity would be more broadly captured, regardless of where it occurred.
The most important piece of this proposed legislation is the attempts made to address the longest ballot committee's nefarious efforts to cause chaos and confusion in our ballots and in our democratic process. We saw this in the riding of Carleton in the last election. We saw it in the Battle River—Crowfoot by-election. We just saw it in the by-election in Terrebonne. These were attempts by a small group pretending to protest. These were not protests. They were an abuse of the democratic tools that we have in this country.
The longest ballot committee would get people to go in, the same 100 people, to sign 100 people's nomination papers, and one person would serve as a financial agent for every single one of those people. All of a sudden, we would have a ballot that was three, four or five feet long with 100 candidates on it. This was an absolute disrespect of our democratic process. It was not a protest. It was done to cause chaos and confusion and disenfranchise voters from the process.
We have an amendment now. I am glad to see that the Liberals have agreed with our call and have included in this proposed legislation that one person can only sign the nomination papers for one candidate in that riding. A person can only serve as official agent for one campaign. These changes would be put in to ensure that candidates on ballots are serious candidates, and are not just doing it for some form of political protest, causing a ballot to be cancelled and the name needing to be written in, or creating a ballot that is four feet long, as we saw in the last election. This not what Canadians want. They do not want a joke made of the democratic process. They want it to be respected. This specific change to ballot integrity, I believe, will go a long way.
I will wrap up my comments just by saying it is important that we see this legislation advance to committee for further study and debate. I look forward to hearing those contributions from my colleagues on this legislation and others. I think it is vitally important that we get our Canada Elections Act right so Canadians can have full confidence in our electoral system.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told the House he is 39 years old. Based on my math, with 20 years in public service, that is more than half a lifetime already. I congratulate him on the work that he has done both here in the House of Commons and in municipal forums as well.
I agree with a lot of what the member talked about, particularly the work in this bill on extending foreign interference concerns into nominations and leadership, where the Elections Act had previously not been, and some of the work on returning officers and their privacy.
Political fundraising is an important aspect of democracy as well, so all parties have the resources to be able to contribute in this place. Whether it is in Kings—Hants or elsewhere in the country, people want to step up, and sometimes they want to be involved with registered events. I have seen increasing activism around that, particularly around the idea that political parties have to give five days' notice of the location of these public events.
I wonder if the member would agree that it is a reasonable step to protect participation and try to avoid the manifestation of unreasonable protests with transparency still in place.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the backgrounder on that.
It is important that when we go to the procedure and House affairs committee after second reading, as the legislation I believe will advance through the House to that process, that we look at that, because there is always this balance, as my colleague alluded to. There are several changes in the bill to protect the home addresses of returning officers, for example, in the Canada Gazette, as well as making sure there is privacy and security when it comes to safely going through, maybe it is for a fundraiser, a political process to do all of that. I will let my colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee listen to some of the witness testimony that may come forward on that.
However, I am certainly open to making sure that we balance the privacy versus the transparency aspect in the legislation. Sometimes it can be a delicate balance, but I look forward to the debates and discussions on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's attention to detail. I have attended several meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with him.
I have a question for him. What about public funding for parties? The goal is to promote fairness, justice and democracy. Clearly, one of the things that public funding does is reduce the number of friends and loved ones with deep pockets.
That is what was done in Quebec. The donation limit was lowered to $100 a year, regardless of how much each individual can afford to give, and the limit goes up to $200 during an election year.
In 2011, the Conservatives eliminated the per-vote subsidy. Basically, to compensate the parties, the allowable amount was increased. This amount is now more than $1,780. It must be even higher, in fact, and honestly, it is really unfair.
Would my colleague be willing to revisit the idea of a limit of $500 per person, for example? How about that? This is a topic that will likely be discussed at committee.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc, who I did serve with on the procedure and House affairs committee. I will say that, frankly, returning to the per-vote subsidy is not an issue that I find I am in agreement with her on.
There are a couple of things to note that I think are important when it comes to political financing. Businesses, corporations and unions are barred from making donations to riding associations and political campaigns, which I think is the right decision. Donations are also capped at, I believe, $1,725 per year. It might be $1,750 if I missed the increase, or that will be coming up next year. I think that is a very reasonable number.
We are not seeing, in contrast to the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, donations of tens of thousands of dollars being used by businesses and wealthy people to influence the political process. Barring businesses, corporations and unions, and having only individual Canadians contribute up to a maximum of about $1,700 a year, is very reasonable. The tax credits that are provided to Canadians for making donations are generous but reasonable and are another incentive for people to make those donations.
I believe that part of the democratic process is going out, fundraising and doing all of that, using those tools within reason. It is not going out and getting tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars in donations from individual people or corporations. It is getting from individuals, through the democratic process, $25, $50 or $100, which helps create the viability and momentum of the grassroots aspect of our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. He mentioned our former colleague, Kenny Chiu, who was elected at the same time as the two of us in 2019. He introduced a foreign influence registry private member's bill, something that the Liberal government should have done but failed to do.
Madam Justice Hogue noted in her report that this was one of the reasons why Mr. Chiu may have lost his election, because of the foreign interference that followed, in the Chinese language on social media to people in his riding, criticizing him unfairly for introducing this private member's bill. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly miss having Kenny in the House. He was a great colleague, like my colleague who just asked the question, from the class of 2019.
Actions and circumstances of foreign interference were concluded to have taken place in several different forms by many. It is absolutely appropriate to have a foreign agent registry in this country. It was an effort that Kenny was very vocal on, and rightfully so. It is something the Liberals are dragging their feet on introducing. It has been several years since they promised one, and they are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the process. We are still not seeing that fully enacted.
The sooner that could get done, the better for our democracy. I look forward to seeing it ASAP.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election, I noticed this increasingly, with the way in which political commentary is happening online, on social media, Facebook, Instagram and a whole host of different mechanisms, including TikTok in some cases.
We see the rise of artificial intelligence in society writ large. AI can have the benefit of creating good in the world, but if wrong actors are trying to misinform the public about what is and is not true, it can also have the ability to deliberately sway or have an impact on elections. There is a provision about creating an offence for digital impersonations and provisions for AI deepfakes.
I am wondering if the member has any thoughts about this. Beyond the provisions of what is in the act, what are the member's thoughts or commentary on whether he has picked up on the same thing and has started to see a rise in certain actors, perhaps trying to manipulate at a local level, what is and what is not true?
Mr. Speaker, I will say that, although it is a very serious issue, the way some of the memes and videos can be created with it is amazing. Sometimes it is humorous, but in respect to this legislation, it is very serious and we do need to tackle this.
What is important to note in this, from my understanding of the legislation and the way that I read it, is that it is about deliberately misleading and giving false election information. Now, that is not going to limit the free speech of someone saying that a Conservative government would do X to reduce crime or a Liberal member saying that is false information. I do not believe it is going to do that. That is not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is a situation to make sure that we have very clear laws that state someone cannot use AI or a deepfake to pretend that they are a returning officer or a candidate saying that the voting location at the Ramada Inn has been cancelled today and is now over at this spot, or giving wrong information along those ends.
It is very important, not only with AI and deepfakes but also with people using social media to abuse or confuse electors, that we make sure that anybody who does that type of activity is charged and convicted. We need to make sure the proper legislation is in place to allow those convictions to take place.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member brought up AI in reference to our elections. Canada is so far behind in data centres and AI. It is becoming a bigger issue in the House of Commons.
How much more work does the member think we have to do, with the technologies already in place, in places like China, that are interfering with our elections?
Mr. Speaker, I agree that AI is a major challenge. We are behind the eight ball and playing catch-up on that issue, as we are playing catch-up on foreign interference as well. These are major issues that we need to address.
A criticism of the current Liberal government right now, and a concern that has been raised many times today, is that, on the Prime Minister's recent visit to China, he was signing a security agreement with the PRC's Ministry of Public Security to share information. That is a real challenge. It is going in the wrong direction. I know there will be a lot more discussion on that in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the strong and free elections act, Bill C-25, the government's response to several recent developments, both local and international, that have challenged the integrity of and public confidence in one of our most important democratic institutions, our elections.
After the 2021 election, the federal government appointed the Hon. Marie-Josée Hogue as commissioner for the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. It is a very long name and also a very long report of seven or eight volumes. The commissioner's final report came out on January 28, 2025, about 14 months ago. I am going to read a couple of quotations from the report because they set the context for what this proposed legislation is all about. This is what she had to say at page 3 of her report:
The first observation I would like to make from the evidence is that it is true that some foreign states are trying to interfere in our democratic institutions, including electoral processes. This is nothing new and comes as no surprise—states have been trying to interfere with each other’s business since time immemorial. What is new, however, is the means deployed by these states, the apparent scale of the issue and the public discourse on the topic.
Members can think about it. We have been talking about AI. We have been talking about the influence of social media on people and the ease of spreading misinformation and disinformation. All of that is affecting our democratic institutions. Today, we were talking about our Canada Elections Act.
In anticipation of the commissioner's conclusion at the end of seven or eight volumes, she wrote this at page 15: “I have found no evidence that the overall result of any election has been swung by a foreign actor and have identified only a small number of individual ridings where foreign interference may have had some impact.”
Reading between the lines, the report says that, with or without foreign interference in the 2019 election, we would have had a minority Liberal government under the leadership of then prime minister Trudeau, and we would have had the Conservatives being in the opposition with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who was the leader of the Conservative Party, as the Leader of the Opposition. That would have been the result, and I believe that is what Madam Justice Hogue meant by saying that she saw no impact on the overall result of that election.
It was the same in 2021. With or without foreign interference in Canada's 2021 general election, we were going to have the Liberal minority government under then prime minister Justin Trudeau, and the Conservative opposition, with Erin O'Toole as the Leader of the Opposition.
I accept Justice Hogue's findings that, in those two elections, Canadians got both the government and the opposition that they chose, but I note that her report also says this, which is highly important in the debate going on today: “I...have identified only a small number of individual ridings where foreign interference may have had some impact.”
Therefore, at the macro level, Canadians got the government they chose, but at the local level, maybe they did not get the MP that the majority of people had actually wanted due to foreign interference in our electoral system. That is what we take out of this report.
Justice Hogue drills down and looks at the riding of Steveston—Richmond East. We were talking about that just a couple of minutes ago in debate. This is what the Hogue report says at page 33: “In 2021, Mr. Chiu, the Conservative Party MP for Steveston—Richmond East, was the target of false narratives related to his proposal to implement a foreign influence registry.”
If I have some time at the end, I will talk a bit more about the history behind the foreign influence registry, but for now, I am just going to continue with the Hogue report. It goes on to note that Mr. Chiu and the Conservative Party of Canada requested, very shortly after the election, that these issues be brought to CSIS.
CSIS took on the investigation, but it did not get back to Mr. Chiu and the Conservative Party until almost two years later in the fall of 2023, and then only after media reporting about alleged leaks of the CSIS intelligence report. CSIS dropped the ball. Did it do good work? It probably did, but it was just too late. It was delayed, and it did not keep Mr. Chiu and his party in the loop.
However, this story is not primarily about Mr. Chiu, my friend and colleague, and it is not primarily about the people of Steveston—Richmond East, although they are obviously players in the whole story. This is a story about the Canadian public and our confidence, or lack thereof, in our electoral system.
Justice Hogue did not pull any punches when criticizing the government's slow and inadequate response to these allegations. She stated, “I could not fulfill my mandate to help build public confidence in our democratic institutions if I minimized the ways in which efforts have come up short.” She was very critical of the government. She went on to list some of these shortfalls. There was slow reaction to issues that were very urgent and very serious and should have been given a much higher level of attention. There was the failure to get information to the right decision-makers and policy-makers, and when the information finally did get to those decision-makers and policy-makers, they did not know what to do with it. They did not appreciate the seriousness of it. This was obviously under the guidance and inspiration of the Liberal government that, at that time, was not taking foreign interference as a serious issue. Also, there was a lack of coordination. There was confusion about the roles and accountabilities. However, in the end, she summed it up with rather a positive tone. She said, “However, on the whole, I am satisfied that the government now appreciates the foreign interference threat that Canada faces and is serious about responding to it.”
It was 15 months ago that Justice Hogue wrote that, and here we are, finally, in the next Parliament, acting on it with the proposed strong and free elections act. It is a step in the right direction. We are going to support it to go to committee where I look forward to drilling down to see that it truly answers the legitimate concerns that have been raised in this report that Canadians have about the integrity of our democratic institutions.
Here is one more quote from the Hogue report that I think sums it up nicely:
Foreign interference—and our fear of foreign interference—has taken its toll. For some, their faith in our system has been challenged. I hope that for those who take the time to read this report, what they learn—what I have learned—will not only enhance their understanding of the foreign interference threat but also go some distance in rebuilding the confidence and trust in our democracy.
I hope indeed that Bill C-25 will do exactly that, and that it will go some distance in rebuilding the lagging confidence that so many Canadians have in our democratic institutions.
I would note that, in the last election, the voter turnout of younger people increased, and so that is a reason for optimism. A larger number of first-time voters came out, and once people vote the first time, they are probably going to vote in subsequent elections. Perhaps that curve is going in the right direction. However, unfortunately, overall, election turnout has not been particularly good. How much of that is tied to Canadians' skepticism about the integrity of our electoral system?
I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the bill before us is a response not only to international affairs, which I think I talked about quite adequately, but also some local issues that have developed right here in Canada. In the last few general elections and by-elections, a group of local troublemakers or pranksters have interfered with our elections. They call themselves the “longest ballot committee”. We have all heard of their tactics, most recently in the by-election in Terrebonne. They find loopholes in our election act that allow them to nominate large numbers of people, sometimes in the hundreds, to run in a specific riding. They present themselves as being on a noble quest of wanting to initiate a citizens' forum, as they call it, to review our age-old first-past-the-post electoral system, which they do not like. They found a number of loopholes.
One of the participants actually appeared as a witness at the procedure and House affairs committee a couple of months ago. What they have discovered is that, under the current Canada Elections Act, they can have the same 100 people sign 100 or even 200 nomination forms, nominating 200 different people. They can have the same person acting as a financial agent for all 200 or 100 or however many people they manage to get on the ballot. We want to shut that down. We are saying that this is inappropriate.
I want to go back to their comments about wanting a citizens' forum. I can say that, being a British Columbian, I have some experience with that. We have had quite a lot of experience with citizens' forums and citizens' institutions. Over the years, I think we have had two or three of them.
These were groups of responsible people coming together, appointed by the government, to have an intelligent and high-level discussion to review our electoral system, and to possibly come up with options with regard to the first-past-the-post system, which, over the years, has been challenged many times. The citizens' forum put the options to the voters in British Columbia on at least two occasions. Both times, citizens, after looking at it, studying it, trying their best to understand how the different options would work, said that they were comfortable with the first-past-the-post system and that they wanted to keep it.
The pranksters behind the longest ballot committee are very aware of this history. We put it to them. They know it. They knew that if they were to go through that process again, a rational process, a legal process supported by the government, they would be unsuccessful. They thought they would try something else, guerrilla war tactics, instead. That is what they are doing. They are not serious. They know that they will not succeed. They know that this is nothing more than a stunt that is making people angry. They must be stopped. That is what the bill would do.
I am happy to see that the drafters of the legislation have picked up the recommendations of the procedure and House affairs committee by implementing a couple of very important changes. There would now be a prohibition on a person signing nomination papers of more than one prospective candidate. There would be another prohibition on a person acting as an official agent for more than one candidate in the same electoral district.
We looked at this very carefully. We listened to experts. We wanted to be as flexible as possible.
We recognize that Canadians have a constitutional right, protected by section 3 in the charter, to be fully involved, in an unrestricted manner, in our electoral system. We want to encourage people to put their name forward and to be candidates. We want to encourage people to run as independents. One does not have to run for a political party. One does not need the endorsement of a party. Someone can just go out, be an independent candidate and get all their friends out to listen to them at the debate. This is all good for democracy.
We did not want to stand in the way of that. We made this as permissive as possible, and I am happy to see that the government has actually picked up on this. We heard from legal experts that these restrictions are reasonable limitations on Canadians' charter-protected rights to participate fully in the democratic process.
I agree that we need to put an end to the nonsense of the longest ballot committee. I also agree that these changes that we are proposing and which have found their way into Bill C-25 are reasonable and supportable. I want to send this to committee now for a further drill-down, to make sure that they actually would withstand the charter challenge and that they would provide the guidance that people need when they decide to get involved in the democratic process.
I want to go back to my comments about the foreign influence registry. Our former colleague from Richmond East—Steveston introduced a private member's bill. I remember him asking why the government side of the House was not doing this. Many other western democracies have implemented and set up and authorized a foreign influence registry. It is not only China or Beijing but there are other countries as well that like to interfere in western democracies.
Our trading nations, our fellow Westerners, have set up foreign influence registries. Why have we not done that? I believe it is because the Liberal government was not taking it seriously. It certainly was not at that time. Mr. Chiu took the brave step to introduce a private member's bill. I am going to go back to what Madam Justice Hogue said:
In 2021, Mr. Chiu, the Conservative Party MP for Steveston-Richmond East, was the target of false narratives related to his proposal to implement a foreign influence registry.
He was doing the work that the government should have been doing and he paid the price for it. I was very disappointed at the time. I still feel sad when I think about Mr. Chiu not being our colleague right now.
I just want to underline that this bill is a step in the right direction. Much of it is supportable. In some things, it does not go far enough. In some things, I think it requires a further drill-down at the committee to ensure the proposals are actually going to meet their objectives. Certainly, we need to also hear from experts to ensure that it can withstand any sorts of challenges in court or challenges by people who want to find loopholes to get around them and find ways to interfere with our democratic institutions. That is what this bill is all about. We want to stop that.
We want to support our democratic institutions. We want to support our free and fair elections. We want to ensure that Canadians are getting the government that they deserve and that they voted for. We want to ensure that Canadians are getting the local member of Parliament they want to choose and whom the majority are behind.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member for his thoughts in more detail about why the government has failed to enact the foreign registry. The government outlined during debates in the last Parliament that it was an important and necessary tool. It was partly in response to the Hogue commission, yet here we are. On three or four occasions, the government changed the timeline. Why is it being so slow to act on something that is so important?
I also mention this in the context of the new security agreement the government just signed with China. How can we, as parliamentarians, be confident in the approach taken with a foreign government that the Hogue commission outlined as the greatest threat to Canadian democracy and with the new security agreement, when the government has not not enacted the foreign registry to date?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my next-door neighbour, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford for a very thoughtful question. Indeed, there have been delays. The member asked me why the Liberal government has delayed that. I do not know. He would probably have to ask someone in of the Liberal government. I know he did not expect me to actually have an answer to that.
However, this is the good news. We have now appointed Anton Boegman, the former chief electoral officer of British Columbia, to be the commissioner of the foreign influence registry. His job, number one, is now going to be to set up the registry. He came to our committee. We are optimistic that his appointment will actually be a meaningful one.
However, my colleague raised a very interesting point. In light of the Prime Minister signing this security agreement with China, the greatest threat to our democracy, I wonder how effective the registry is actually going to be.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Criminal Code
The House resumed from November 3, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill C-238, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (restitution orders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise today and speak about Bill C-238, an act to amend the Criminal Code, restitution orders.
I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for bringing forward this bill and for drawing attention to the important work that community organizations, emergency services and victim support services provide to communities across Canada every single day. Often, these organizations provide vital services to victims of crime at moments when help is critically important.
We speak frequently in this place about how the criminal justice system is a shared responsibility in Canada and all levels of government have an important role to play in addressing the needs of victims and survivors of crime. As the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights noted during the last Parliament in its report on improving support for victims of crime, “collaboration between governments and community organizations is key to providing holistic, effective services to victims”.
I know I speak for many Canadians when I express my sincere gratitude for the constant efforts of the people who work in these organizations and their dedication to assist members of their communities when they need it the most.
[Translation]
I also share my colleague's concern about the catastrophic impact of illicit drugs on Canadian communities. I have no doubt that every one of my colleagues here has personally witnessed the consequences of this crisis in their communities across the country. We must all work together to fix this.
[English]
While there remains much work to be done, I do wish to highlight that the Government of Canada is taking action. As one example, the government has already introduced legislation, through Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. This bill proposes measures to ensure that law enforcement has the tools to keep our borders secure, combat transnational organized crime, stop the flow of illegal fentanyl and crack down on money laundering. While this is not an easy fight, it is one that I am proud the Government of Canada is committed to.
My hope today is to assist our debate by discussing the way the current restitution framework in the Criminal Code operates and by raising some considerations that may be helpful for members to consider as this bill moves into study in committee.
To begin, restitution is a part of the criminal sentencing process. It is one of the tools a judge has in their tool box when sentencing or discharging an offender, and it is something that a judge can use in the important task of imposing a fit sentence on an offender that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and their degree of responsibility. When it is ordered by a judge, a restitution order requires an offender to pay for specific expenses that are linked to the offence they committed. Restitution can be a component of a probation order or a conditional sentence, or it can be included as a stand-alone order.
Bill C-238 would amend the stand-alone restitution order provision found in section 738 of the Criminal Code. As it currently reads, section 738 outlines several different types of expenses that an order under that section can apply to. Some of the expenses listed in this section are more general and apply to a number of different offences in the Criminal Code, while others are drafted to respond to specific offences. As examples of the more general types of expenses in the section, a restitution order under section 738 can address property damage resulting from the commission of an offence or the arrest of an offender, or it can address bodily injury or psychological harm due to the crime, including loss of income or support.
[Translation]
Section 738 also covers costs related to specific crimes. It allows for the payment of reasonable expenses incurred for housing, moving, food, child care and transportation if the spouse, common-law partner, child or any other person must move out of the offender's household because of bodily harm or threat of bodily harm. It allows for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by a victim to re-establish their identity or correct their credit rating following identity theft or identity fraud. Lastly, section 738 applies to expenses incurred by victims to remove intimate images published without their consent from the Internet or other digital network.
[English]
While I have spoken to what restitution orders under section 738 can do, it is important to note that there are also things they cannot do. I mentioned earlier in my remarks that restitution orders are a part of the criminal sentencing process. In all of the examples I have described, the amount set out in a restitution order must result from the offence the offender committed, or their arrest or attempted arrest. Restitution amounts must be easy to calculate and not seriously contested.
Restitution under the Criminal Code is not intended to replace the system of civil courts in Canada, and criminal courts are not the right place to settle complex questions about the amount of money that should be paid in the order. There are types of impacts on a victim of a criminal offence that can be significant, but which restitution orders cannot address: for example, pain and suffering or emotional distress.
With this in mind, we should consider, as we study this bill, which kinds of expenses restitution is designed to capture. Many of the expenses that community organizations must pay in order to provide the important services they do may be impossible to link to specific offenders and offences. It will be important to ensure that any action in this area provides a clear direction to sentencing courts about what kinds of expenses can be sought in a restitution order: that those expenses are appropriate subjects of restitution and that they result from the offence an offender is being sentenced for.
While the subject of this bill is restitution orders, given our discussion about the important work of community organizations, I would also like to take a brief moment before my time is up to note some of the ways in which the Government of Canada supports community organizations, including community-based victim services.
One example of how this support is provided is Justice Canada's victims fund. The victims fund provides grants and contributions to support projects and activities that encourage the development of new approaches, promote access to justice, improve the capacity of service providers, foster the establishment of referral networks and increase awareness of services available to victims of crime and their families. In 2025-26, over $24 million was provided through the victims fund to assist or support non-governmental organizations. This money supported important projects and services throughout Canada that made a real difference for victims.
[Translation]
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this bill, and I look forward to the committee's consideration of it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-238, a bill that attempts to address a very real and serious issue in our country, the issue of growing crime in our communities.
Let me be clear. The intent behind this bill is understandable. Across Canada, frontline organizations are carrying an enormous burden, shelters are overwhelmed, hospitals are dealing with constant overdose cases, first responders are stretched thin and victim support organizations are under pressure like never before. These are the people who show up when everything is falling apart, and they are paying a price for crime.
The bill is attempting to respond to this reality by allowing courts to order offenders involved in human and drug trafficking to pay restitution to community organizations. On its face, this is reasonable. If crime creates costs, offenders should help pay the cost. However, as someone who practised law before coming to this House, I understand that just because something sounds good, it does not always work in practice. Unfortunately, I do not believe this bill would work in practice.
The first fundamental problem is causation. We cannot just point to a harm and say who should pay. The basic legal standard is it must be proven that a specific individual caused a specific loss. This bill would be asking the courts to do something extremely difficult: to take broad system-wide costs, like shelter demand and harm reduction services, and tie them to a single offender; to decide which dealer caused the overdose that required opioid overdose reversals like Narcan; or to decide which individual caused the need for shelter security upgrades. These are not simple questions and in many cases they cannot be answered in a way that meets required legal standards. If it cannot be proven, then this bill simply will not deliver.
The second problem is enforceability. Let us say the courts do establish causation. There is the question of whether the money can even be collected. The reality is the vast majority of offenders pertaining to this bill would not have the means to pay, with no assets, no steady incomes and likely facing significant sentences. What would happen? Courts would issue restitution that exists on paper, but not in reality, not collected, not enforced and providing no meaningful support to those community organizations. We would be left with only the illusion of accountability.
The third issue is the impact on our justice system. The courts are already under strain, dealing with delays, backlogs and increasing pressure on judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. The bill would add another layer of complexity at the sentencing stage. To determine restitution, courts would need detailed financial records, documentation of expenses, witnesses to establish those costs, arguments over whether those costs were caused by a specific offender and so on. What would this really mean? It would mean more time, more paperwork and more delay. The result would be a system that moves even slower at a time when Canadians are already losing confidence in it.
There would also be a practical burden falling on the organizations this bill is supposed to help. To access restitution, they would need to track expenses in detail, link those expenses to specific incidents, prepare documentation for court and participate in legal proceedings. That is more administration work, more time spent in courts and more sources diverted from frontline work.
Most smaller organizations will not have the capacity to do such things. If they do go ahead with it, we go back to the issue of enforceability. Will they even get any money? Are the court resources used not overwhelmingly more expensive than the damages?
Let us talk about this crime crisis briefly. It is a crisis we are dealing with right now in communities across the country, including Edmonton. In Edmonton, we are seeing the impact of crime and addiction every single day. We see rising drug use on the streets. We see increased overdoses on deadly street drugs, and we see immense pressure on shelters and emergency services.
Organized criminal activity is becoming more viable and more aggressive. Extortion is a huge issue in my riding, and I hear constantly of cases from my constituents. Small business owners are being targeted, especially through WhatsApp. They are being threatened, intimidated and told to pay or face consequences. These are people who have worked hard to build something and are being forced to live in fear. When they look at the justice system, they are not looking for symbolic restitution orders years down the line. They are asking for protection, for enforcement and for a system that actually stops the people causing the harm. This is where we need to focus, because accountability is not about new processes that look good on paper. It is about outcomes. It is about strengthening and enforcing laws.
This is where the Liberals have failed. They have failed to stop repeat offenders who are committing most of the crime. They have created an in-and-out bail system that puts criminals back on the street. They have relaxed sentencing laws, making it difficult for people to go to jail. They give violent criminals house arrest and no punishment. They have grown the addiction crisis and have focused on safe supply instead of getting people off drugs. Instead of doing the real work, they are pushing legislation that just looks good and does nothing to solve the real issues. This bill is a prime example. We all agree that communities are paying the price for crime. We all agree that frontline organizations deserve support, but good intentions are not enough. If a law cannot be proven, if it cannot be enforced, then it does not achieve its purpose.
Canadians deserve better than that. They deserve a justice system that works. They deserve policies that deliver real results. They deserve communities that are safe, not just in theory, but in reality. For those reasons, and for the reason that I am not convinced it will be viable and practical to collect money from the offenders, even though I have great respect for the intent behind this bill, I cannot support this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for presenting their opinions on Bill C‑238. Now it is my turn to do the same on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.
The purpose of Bill C‑238 is to make restitution available for organizations, often community organizations, that provide frontline services to the community. It would allow organizations to claim damages and interest through criminal proceedings from offenders who commit crimes related to illegal drug trafficking, kidnapping and human trafficking.
The addition proposed in this bill would permit organizations, meaning incorporated entities, to obtain restitution. At present, the law regarding restitution is set out in section 730 of the Criminal Code. A number of restitution orders may be requested at sentencing.
Currently, organizations are excluded, but victims can obtain some degree of restitution through damages and interest in consideration of the harm caused. For example, restitution is available if property was destroyed during the commission of an offence. If an offender enters a home and causes damage during an armed assault or a break and enter, a restitution order may be sought and the offender would be required to pay it.
A restitution order may also be sought in the case of bodily or psychological harm to any person. For example, sexual assault is sure to leave psychological scars, and the Crown prosecutor may apply for an order. The court may also make a restitution order. This is always for damages and interest, but restitution may also cover loss of income. A victim of crime who cannot work may apply to the court for a restitution order. This also covers the threat of bodily harm.
The Criminal Code already contains provisions for ordering an offender to pay amounts to victims in cases of intimate partner violence when the situation results in the children or the mother or father having to relocate for a period of time. An order for restitution may be sought in such situations. The same applies for costs incurred as a result of identity theft. A victim who wishes to re-establish their identity must take certain steps, and the court may order the offender to pay damages. The same applies for reasonable expenses related to removing intimate images from the Internet.
That is the law as it stands. The bill before us would add provisions such that not only victims, but also community organizations that provide services, such as helping individuals with drug addiction or providing shelter, can apply to the court for a restitution order for crimes related to drug and human trafficking, as stated in the bill.
As my colleague mentioned, the intention is laudable. The member sponsoring this bill says that she wants to increase funding for community organizations. That is a laudable intention. To do so, she wants to hit drug traffickers and pimps where it hurts.
The intention is laudable, but unfortunately, the proposed approach is flawed. That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. The approach is flawed for several reasons. First, if this measure were adopted, it would force victims to compete with community organizations. As has been mentioned, people may think that drug traffickers are extremely wealthy. Some of them are, but criminals are often poor.
In any case, if the bill is passed, there will come a time when, during sentencing in court, restitution will be sought by both victims and an organization, and the victims could lose out. To get a sense of what this could look like, let us consider the case of a woman who is a victim of human trafficking. One person is charged, and the woman we are talking about is the victim. The defendant pleads guilty. Then comes sentencing. At that point, the court will have to determine who should receive restitution. That is one issue.
One of the obstacles in the bill has to do with causality. My colleague mentioned this. Let me give an example. Let us say it is a case of human trafficking, and a community organization, such as a shelter for abused women, wants to obtain an order. It will have to demonstrate that, as a result of the offence, it incurred expenses for the person's services, for example, or to provide shelter. There is a challenge, because causality will not be easy to prove in every case. It is also important to always remember that most people who are convicted do not have significant financial resources. How effective would this measure actually be?
Another rather significant obstacle is the red tape involved in all this. I think that everyone here must visit community organizations in their ridings from time to time. In my riding, some community organizations recently said that they are stretched thin. They are few in number, they work very hard and they perform miracles. If they wanted to go ahead and use this provision, they need to be aware of the criminal remedies available to them. There is a lot of that in court. A number of charges are dealt with in court. Community organizations should monitor what is happening in the criminal court and make sure they are there at the time of sentencing. Take, for example, an organization that offers addiction treatment. First, they would need to know that there is a court hearing going on that day, and then they would have to show that it was the methamphetamine that was sold by this particular drug dealer that caused the overdose of this specific victim who turned to the organization's services on a specific date. This is not necessarily an easy process for organizations that are already doing outstanding work with limited resources.
The other argument—and I believe this is the decisive one—is that measures already exist to fund community organizations. One specific measure already exists in the Criminal Code and is known as the victim surcharge. Under section 737 of the Criminal Code, the court may impose an additional fine, a victim surcharge, once a person is convicted. The Supreme Court has ruled on this and set parameters, but it used to apply in all cases. Now it is at the discretion of the judge, who may or may not order it. There are certain fixed fine amounts, but it is a mechanism that exists and serves much the same purpose: to take money out of criminals' pockets and use it for good. In Quebec, this money is sent to a fund to help victims of crime, the Fonds affecté à l'aide aux personnes victimes d'infractions criminelles. According to the fund's activity report, only $3.2 million was collected in victim surcharges across the whole of Quebec in 2024–25, so we can see that this is not a panacea and that, in fact, criminals often have limited means. Still, it is better than nothing.
Another existing mechanism involves funds derived from the proceeds of crime. Our justice system already has the means, when conducting criminal investigations and bringing charges, to seize the proceeds of crime and transfer them to the state so they can be used for good. This is already the case in Quebec. CAVAC, the crime victims' assistance centre, is already funded with this money. Several other organizations, including Plaidoyer Victimes, SOS Violence Conjugale, and Éducaloi, are also funded this way.
There are many other options available. If the government truly wants to increase funding, I simply suggest that it increase transfers to the provinces so that we can pass the funds on to our community organizations.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the law-abiding Canadians in the compassionate riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke and speak to Bill C-238. This private member's bill proposes to allow community organizations to seek restitution for drug crimes or human trafficking crimes. Making criminals pay for the consequences of their crimes has an undeniably popular appeal.
The member for Sudbury's intentions with the bill may be honourable, but they are certainly misguided. It is an overused cliché to say that all good intentions lead to the fiery pits of damnation. Sometimes good intentions just lead to an endless bureaucratic maze. At other times those good intentions lead nowhere at all. Those two options are juxtaposed in the bill. Either it would never be used because the legal hurdles are too high, or it would be used but the accumulated costs would outweigh the benefits. My colleagues with actual lived experience in courtrooms explained how the wording of the bill makes it unlikely the bill would be of any use.
First, the expenses incurred would have to be directly linked to the criminal offence. A convicted drug trafficker cannot be ordered to pay for all overdose costs. The organization would need to show that the specific individual who overdosed purchased a specific dose from a specific trafficker. Second, the organization would have to prove the marginal cost to treat that overdose. Most organizations get naloxone kits from the provinces for free. Given the nature of the work that many of these organizations do, it just might be impossible to disentangle the routine expenses from the marginal expenses resulting from a criminal offence.
The bill lists the types of expenses an organization could claim. Not included on the list is the cost of accountants to ascertain the eligible expenses. One example of an expense perfectly highlights the problem with the bill: “expenses to implement or strengthen security measures, including expenses for security services and equipment”. This expense makes no sense, especially since the bill would limit restitution to cases of drug trafficking and human smuggling.
We could follow the lead of the Supreme Court and create a hypothetical case to highlight the absurdity, or we could look at the tragic events surrounding the death of Karolina Huebner-Makurat, a 44-year-old mother of two who was killed by a stray bullet on July 7, 2023, while walking near the South Riverdale Community Health Centre in Toronto. The shooting occurred during a fight between drug dealers outside the supervised consumption site located within the health centre. An employee of the health centre aided one of the drug dealers in fleeing the police.
If this bill had been law, and if the Crown had brought additional trafficking charges against the killers, the health centre would have been allowed to seek restitution for any strengthened security measures. Any security measures taken after the fact, such as installing a security camera, cannot be attributed to a specific crime. The crime has already happened. The camera cannot undo the crime. It may have been the impetus, but it is not the direct cause. The camera may reduce the likelihood of another crime, but that means it cannot reasonably be assigned to the initial crime.
The criminal act would also have to be so unusual or so impactful that it resulted in a permanent degradation of the security environment. While the murder of Karolina would certainly qualify as an example, murder is not on the list of crimes covered by the bill.
The South Riverdale Community Health Centre staff were well aware that drug trafficking was occurring outside. The organization had a long history of ignoring community concerns about the criminal activity centred around a safe consumption site. The organization acted as a magnet for traffickers. An employee of the organization fell in love with a drug trafficker and helped him hide from the police.
Measures taken after the fact are not driven by the last criminal acts but are intended to avoid liability for the consequences of any subsequent criminal acts. Proving that a specific criminal act resulted in a specific marginal expense to an organization is so onerous that it likely would never be pursued. If this bill were passed and never used, that would be the best case scenario. If it were used, it could have only one result: It would lengthen the sentencing hearings and further tie up scarce resources in the courts. Defence attorneys would have economists and accountants on speed-dial to contest every expense.
While drug traffickers are having their charges dropped because the cases take too long, the worst thing we could do is add to the delays by passing ill-considered laws. I doubt it is the intention of the member for Sudbury to add further delays to the criminal justice system, but that would be the impact.
At best, this bill is useless. At worst, it will help criminals get off scot-free.
As I said in the beginning, the motivations seem to be coming from a good place. The member for Sudbury wants to make criminals pay for the harms they cause. I think that is something all Canadians can get behind. There should be some way to connect the harm caused to an organization by the person or people causing the harm.
For example, when the government decided it would copy the playbook used by opioid makers and flooded our streets with narcotics, it caused harm. Giving out free hydromorphone like candy had the predictable result of creating new drug addicts. This bill would seek to help community organizations impacted by the surge in drug addiction, yet it is the government's harm production policy that is at the root of many of the problems those same organizations are experiencing.
Since crime rates peaked in the 1970s, they have been on a steady, 50-year decline. The year that mandatory minimums for gun possession were repealed was the last year we saw a decline in crime. The Liberal government saw those same statistics and proceeded to knowingly repeal mandatory minimum sentences for the very crimes this bill would cover. Again, those crimes are drug trafficking and human trafficking. We know the Liberal government is quite literally trafficking in hydromorphone.
The damage the Liberals have done to our immigration and asylum system was also a boon to human traffickers. Ending the visa requirement for Mexico was essentially a two-for-one deal. The cartels would fill up their drug mules, fly them to Canada, unload the drugs and then smuggle the people across the U.S. border. After Justin's “all are welcome to Canada” tweet, the RCMP had to set up welcome centres for all humans smuggled across the border at Roxham Road.
The additional costs being borne by community organizations on the front lines are directly tied to 11 long years of Liberal policies. This bill is like trying to put a band-aid on a machete wound, and the Liberals are the ones wielding the weapon.
I do not blame the member for Sudbury for bringing forward this kind of band-aid bill. She is following the Prime Minister's lead.
The Major Projects Office is another band-aid for the Liberal impact assessment machete.
The Liberals prefer band-aids over doing the hard work and announcements over results. They prefer these types of performative bills. Making criminals pay has popular appeal, but this bill is the wrong approach.
As my colleagues have pointed out, Canada already has mechanisms for victims of crime to seek restitution. If a criminal burns down a safe supply clinic, the Crown attorney can seek restitution for the organization, yet only 1.6% of criminal cases involve a restitution order. Of those, few are ever successfully collected.
There is a reason why drug dealers are more likely to live in their parents' basements: Crime does not pay. Drug pushers and human smugglers belong in jail. While the Liberals prefer that dealers and modern slave runners serve their sentences from home, they still cannot work.
This bill would try to squeeze water from a rock. It is clear that the member for Sudbury has heard from many of the same types of community organizations that I hear from in Renfrew County. They are under increasing financial pressure. Homeless shelters are filled with international students who now claim to be refugees, treatment centres are overrun, our food banks are overwhelmed and businesses are forced to close public washrooms due to rampant drug use.
It was not like this before the Liberals were in power. This is the inevitable and predictable result of Liberal bad policies, including free opioids and open borders with no security checks. The Liberals have spent the cupboard bare, and now they are firing public servants while handing billions to Brookfield.
Canadians and the community organizations they support are being squeezed by a Liberal vice of bad policies and out-of-control spending. Now all they can come up with is this policy that would shake spare change loose from drug dealers.
If the member really cared about the community, she would urge her caucus to cancel the Brookfield clean electricity investment tax credit and put the money toward drug addiction treatment.
Canadians deserve better than Liberal band-aids because they do not stick.
That concludes debate.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Sudbury has five minutes for her right of reply.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from all parties who have spoken to Bill C-238. What we have heard during debate across all party lines is something important. There is broad agreement on the problem. Members spoke about the toll of addiction, trafficking and exploitation in their communities. They spoke about first responders, outreach workers and volunteers stretched to the limits. They spoke about the real and growing pressure on the very people who step in when others cannot. On that, we all agree. Where we differ is on the solution.
Some have suggested that the bill would add process without value, that it would create administrative burden or that it offers a promise that cannot be delivered. I would like to address those concerns this evening directly.
First, the bill would not create a new system. Restitution already exists in the Criminal Code. Judges already have the discretion to order it. Bill C-238 would clarify that restitution can include community organizations when they can demonstrate measurable costs tied to the offence. This is not duplication, but direction. It reflects what we already know, which is that harm from these crimes does not stop with one individual; it ripples outwards, into shelters, emergency rooms and counselling services, the very organizations that hold communities together.
Second, on the question of administrative burden, we have heard the concern that organizations would be required to track and document costs in ways they cannot manage, but the organizations themselves are telling us something very different. I have met with frontline workers who already track detailed data every day for funding and for reporting. They know exactly what it costs to respond to an overdose. They know what it costs to keep a shelter open overnight. They know what it costs to support a survivor of trafficking. These are not abstract numbers. These are real and documented costs. The bill would not ask them to create something new. It would give legal recognition to what already exists.
Third, there have been concerns about enforceability and that restitution orders may not always be collected. That is true today, and it is also true, unfortunately, for individual victims as well, but we do not abandon restitution because it is imperfect. We improve it because accountability matters, and even when restitution is partial, it is meaningful. It tells victims and those who support them that the justice system recognizes their loss. It tells offenders that the harm they caused has consequences beyond their sentence. This is not symbolic. It is restorative.
Finally, there has been concern that the bill could somehow take away from individual victims. Let me be clear. It would not. Individual victims remain the priority. Judges retain full discretion. The bill would simply add an additional pathway, not a competing one.
At its core, the bill is about something very simple. It is about fairness. Right now, community organizations absorb the cost of crime every single day, with limited resources and little recognition within the justice system. At the same time, those who profit from that harm are not being held accountable in a way that reflects the full scope of the damage they have caused. The bill would close that gap.
Police respond to the same overdose calls night after night. Outreach workers are stretched to the breaking point. Organizations have said clearly they are carrying these costs and the system does not see them. This is the reality that the bill responds to. It would not add burden, but it would recognize reality. It would not create bureaucracy, but it would enable accountability. It would not replace existing tools, but it would make them work better. Bill C-238 would ensure that, when harm is proven, repair can follow.
We all agree that these crimes have devastating impacts. We all agree that frontline organizations are under strain. The bill is an opportunity to act on that shared understanding, to give our courts a clearer tool, to support the people doing the work and to ensure that justice reflects the full reality of the harm. I ask colleagues to allow the bill to go to committee so we can hear directly from victims, survivors, police and frontline organizations. Rather than deciding for them, here in the House, what works for them, we must ensure their voices are part of this process.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[Translation]
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and as the associate shadow minister for fisheries for His Majesty's official loyal opposition.
I am here today to debate the response to the question I posed to the Minister of Fisheries on March 26, 2026, when I asked if she would reaffirm a principle that is foundational to the management and control of Canada's fisheries: the principle that fisheries resources belong to the people of Canada. The minister replied, “Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the federal government.” The minister also stated, “A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away [anyone's] access to the resource.”
Despite the minister's response, many Canadians remain very concerned, because it is unclear whether Canadians would continue to be able to depend on the shared public resource principle in order to access just an opportunity to fish for salmon. Canadians remain concerned because the minister's answer did not provide any specifics detailing how the Government of Canada would continue to manage Pacific salmon for all Canadians as a shared public resource. The minister did not state how much access Canadians would have to the shared public resource of Pacific salmon.
In responding, the minister also stated that suggesting that the government would not uphold the shared public resource principle was wrong and divisive. It is ironic that the minister would issue this indictment, when it was her department that published a discussion paper that contained a proposal for the shared public resource principle to be removed from the government's salmon allocation policy. Documents produced and made public by her own government have caused concerns among Canadians. They do not know how the salmon would be managed and by whom, and what organizations would influence or control the management of wild Pacific salmon.
The minister's response was also unclear on what level of access may remain for the public fisheries. She stated, “A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away [anyone's] access to the resource”, but she failed to state whether anyone's access and priority of access to the resource would be increased or in fact reduced. It is easy to say that no one's access would be taken away, but this does not mean that access would not be further limited or reduced in priority ranking.
Canadians deserve clarity from their government, especially cabinet ministers, on what the government has planned for their future access to Canada's shared public resources. What are the government's plans for the economics, the activities that put food on the table and that build family and heritage connections to the lands and waters we all value so highly?
Will the minister confirm that the public would not lose ranking in priority of access to chinook and coho salmon, and that wild Pacific salmon would be maintained as a shared public resource for the use and benefit of all Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from my home province who also sits with me on the fisheries committee. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss the policy that he is looking for some clarity on. It is great to have another opportunity to set the record straight on the Pacific salmon allocation policy.
Wild Pacific salmon are a keystone species on the west coast. As the member likely knows, the minister was recently in B.C. to announce close to $413 million in new funding for the Pacific salmon strategy initiative. This funding will be critical to continue our government's work to rebuild wild salmon. It will strengthen science and monitoring, enable essential habitat restoration, modernize salmon fisheries and expand collaboration with partners.
While in B.C., our government also announced a next step in strengthening the long-term conservation and rebuilding of wild Pacific salmon with the expansion of mass marking of all DFO hatchery-origin chinook salmon in southern British Columbia. Expanded mass marking enhances our understanding of science, providing a clearer picture of wild salmon populations and the performance of our hatcheries. When it comes to the management of wild salmon, it starts with healthy salmon stock.
The 1999 Pacific salmon allocation policy outlines principles that guide the allocation of Pacific salmon catch among first nations, commercial and recreational fisheries. The policy does not define specific allocations for individual fisheries. Following the B.C. Supreme Court's 2018 Ahousaht decision, our government committed to review and update the policy in collaboration with first nations and stakeholders. DFO has been clear from the outset that the renewed policy will continue to prioritize conservation, followed by aboriginal and treaty fishing rights, including the five nations court-affirmed right to sell fish.
The salmon allocation policy review will not extinguish any sector's access to Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the Government of Canada on behalf of all Canadians under the Minister of Fisheries authorities in the Fisheries Act and its regulations.
Since 2019, DFO has undertaken an extensive, multi-year engagement process with first nations, the recreational and the commercial fishing sectors. The recent eight-week open, public and extended consultation on the discussion paper, developed with partners and stakeholders, provided an opportunity for DFO to share input gathered to date and to seek input from first nations, and commercial and recreational harvesters, as well as all other stakeholders.
Discussion papers exist to engage directly with interested parties to get their feedback and considerations. They are not prescriptive. They are a tool for feedback. All viewpoints provided by first nations and stakeholders will be considered in the salmon allocation policy review. No decisions have yet been made. The salmon allocation policy review is still under way and work continues through the formal salmon allocation policy multi-party working group, which provides representatives from first nations, the—
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for that attempted response, but he still has not clearly answered the question that Canadians are extremely concerned with. It is the public access and the priority access to chinook and coho salmon and the ranking that they currently have.
He said that no one will have their rights to access extinguished. Being extinguished is one thing, but having someone's access reduced or losing that priority ranking is what has so many Canadians concerned. That is not just on the west coast, but it is also inland and through the prairie provinces. It extends to people in other areas who travel and spend their resources in our great province. They are looking for certainty. The minister and the parliamentary secretary have failed to deliver that certainty.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. A revised salmon allocation policy will not take away any sector's access to the resource. The policy is being reviewed, and the decisions have not been made to date. Anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong and only dividing Canadians.
Pacific salmon will remain a shared public resource managed by the Government of Canada on behalf of all Canadians under the Minister of Fisheries' authorities in the Fisheries Act and its regulations. There have been extensive public consultations on the policy. Working group tables continue, which include representatives from first nations, the commercial sector, and sport and recreational groups.
The updated policy will continue to prioritize conservation, and it will continue to recognize the constitutional priority of indigenous fishing rights. All Canadians will be respected.
Mr. Speaker, the government promised that its approach to addiction would reduce harm and lead people toward recovery, but the evidence shows that this promise has not been kept. Canadians were told that decriminalization, safer supply and supervised consumption would reduce harm and connect people to treatment. That was the promise. However, the reality on the ground tells a completely different story.
At the health committee, witnesses made it clear that overdose rates have not come down in any meaningful way. Communities are still suffering. Families are grieving. First responders are still overwhelmed. In many places, public spaces that should be safe for children and families are now sites of open drug use, chaos and fear.
In my riding and across British Columbia, people see this every day. Local governments, first responders and health authorities are left carrying the cost of a federal experiment that never should have been imposed in the first place. We know that when British Columbia sought this decriminalization exemption, no other province followed, not one. No other province came forward to ask to copy this model. That alone should have raised serious questions for the federal government. Instead, the Liberals treated British Columbia like a laboratory experiment.
The Liberals say these policies are about compassion. Conservatives believe in compassion too, but compassion means helping people get better. It means treatment. It means recovery. It means giving people a path out of addiction and not trapping them in it.
One of the most troubling realities raised by local health authorities in my riding is what happens when someone is finally ready to seek help. It can take up to two years to get a treatment bed. Imagine someone finding the courage to say, “I need help,” only to be told there is no space, no timely support and no real path forward, but there are more drugs.
We also heard serious concerns from witnesses about the Liberal approach to so-called safer supply. The theory is that if government provides cleaner drugs, people will eventually stabilize and then seek treatment. However, the second part of that argument is simply not happening. We do not have the treatment in place. Instead, many of these drugs are diverted, sold and exchanged for substances users actually want. That means the government is not ending addiction but actually feeding into it.
Now we have more evidence that calls the Liberal narrative into question. A peer-reviewed Canadian study on the closure of a supervised consumption site in Red Deer found no increase in deaths, no increase in emergency department visits and no increase in opioid-related EMS events after the site closed. In other words, when the site closed, more people actually moved to recovery. That matters because Liberals keep telling Canadians that these sites are the answer, even when the evidence shows that recovery-oriented care delivers better outcomes.
Canadians deserve better than this false choice between neglect and normalization. They deserve a government that will invest in treatment, prioritize recovery and restore hope to families who feel abandoned.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Health, and we work very collaboratively. I appreciate her passion and her work on this issue. We have spent a lot of time talking about this issue and trying to figure out best solutions and a path forward. I think the member will agree that there is a multitude of causes, and it requires a multitude of solutions.
Our government has taken strong measures to keep toxic drugs off the street. We understand that we must use every measure at our disposal to save lives and keep communities safe. That means we cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach to respond to these challenges. In the member's speech, she also touched on this a little. Families who have lost loved ones would also say that the issue is very complex. It could be mental health, it could be injuries, it could be addictions, etc. We are keeping all options on the table.
We are responding using law enforcement. Through Canada's border plan, we are giving law and border enforcement the tools they need to detect and disrupt illegal fentanyl and its precursors, keeping these drugs off the street.
It is not only a law enforcement issue and problem. We also need to fight and treat addiction, and I think the member also referenced that in her speech. It means we invest in programs that prevent people from getting addicted in the first place, but that we also support treatment and recovery, so that anyone battling addictions has the support they need to break the cycle.
It also means helping communities respond to urgent needs and emergencies. Through programs like the substance use and addictions program and the emergency treatment fund, we are helping communities offer support and education to vulnerable Canadians.
The most important thing in all of this, however, is that we understand the federal government cannot fight this problem on its own. No single organization or level of government can. That is why we are working with our provincial and territorial partners, communities and indigenous organizations, direct care providers, researchers and people with lived experiences.
Together we are putting forward solutions that will help save lives and keep communities safe. I look forward to continue working with the hon. member, my friend and colleague on tackling this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the aisle, who I know cares deeply about this crisis.
We all want the same thing. We want to end this crisis or at least make a move towards ending it. Canadians are living the consequences. B.C. is living the consequences of the model of decriminalization that did not work. Hopefully no other province is asked to go through what we have had to go through.
The Liberals say this is about helping people, yet when someone is ready for treatment, they are told to wait months or even years. That is not compassion. We now have Canadian evidence showing that when access to these sites is removed, more people actually seek treatment.
Why will the government not prioritize recovery instead of defending policies that keep people trapped in addiction?
Mr. Speaker, we understand and recognize this is a major challenge facing Canada, which is why we are using every option at our disposal to deal with this issue. It requires a multitude of solutions and measures, including law enforcement, prevention, as my colleague has mentioned, treatment and community supports that could support folks in recovery as well.
We are already seeing that drug-related deaths and hospitalizations are decreasing nationally, which shows that our approach is working. We also see the toll this crisis has taken on individuals, families and communities across the country. We will continue to tackle this crisis and work across party lines to make sure that we can balance public health and public safety.
Mr. Speaker, on January 29, I asked the government House leader to let the House and Canadians know when we could expect the long-overdue, three and a half years overdue, review of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarian Act to be initiated. He stated at that time that he would “consider the matter and report to the House at the appropriate time.” Unfortunately, over two months have passed since I asked this question, and the House and Canadians have heard diddly-squat from the Liberal government with respect to the review that is already three and a half years overdue.
Since asking the question, I even decided to help the government out by introducing Motion No. 29, which would initiate this review by forming a special joint committee of MPs and senators from all the recognized parties and Senate groups. Ultimately, I am here tonight to ask once again when the Liberal government is going to initiate this long-overdue and mandated review. I will use the remainder of my time on why I believe this long-overdue review is necessary, with a focus specifically on the NSICOP Act. I have had the privilege of being a member of NSICOP for the last four years.
Number one is that it is the law. It is written into statute. Number two is that I would note that when I reviewed the debate around Bill C-22, which created NSICOP in the 42nd Parliament, there were many questions put to the Liberal minister of public safety at the time and to PCO officials, especially with respect to the perceived lack of independence of the committee. Ian McCowan, the deputy secretary to the cabinet for governance at PCO at the time, provided the following response to my predecessor, the former MP for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, the great Larry Miller: “Obviously something you'll have noted is that a five-year review is built in. I imagine there will be a regular review of the statute.”
My point is that the reassurance of the Liberal government at the time when addressing these concerns brought up by MPs during the standing up of this committee was that there would be a mandated review. Again, that is a review that is long overdue.
Number three is that NSICOP was built very much on the model of the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, the ISC, but not fully. There are a few key differences.
One is that the chair of that committee is elected, not appointed by the Prime Minister. The second is that the ISC has a vice-chair but we do not have one in Canada. Third, the ISC tables its reports directly to Parliament following a redaction process, whereas NSICOP conducts a very similar redaction process but then our reports are submitted to the Prime Minister, who then has 30 sitting days to table them in Parliament. In my opinion, a good example of this tabling that had an unnecessary delay was NSICOP's latest report on lawful access. This report was given to the Prime Minister on March 4 of last year, but it was not tabled in Parliament until September 15, something that is really relevant to the current debate on Bill C-22 this week.
Finally, on resourcing, there is a lack of interpreters with the appropriate security clearance, and the size of the secretariat is a concern. There is a small and mighty team at NSICOP, composed of only 12 people.
These all need to be looked at. This is just a short list of the high-level reasons why I think this long-overdue mandated review is needed now. All the government needs to do is move Motion No. 29, or something similar, to form the necessary committee now to get this necessary review under way. I am hoping the government will make that commitment tonight and let Parliament know when we can expect the review to start.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening to answer the question from my colleague, the member opposite, whom I have had the privilege and delight to work with on NSICOP, as a former member and former chair of that very same committee. I want to highlight just how seriously the government takes the work of NSICOP.
During my time as chair and as a member, the committee submitted a special report on lawful access to communication by security and intelligence organizations, which was tabled in Parliament, as the member opposite mentioned, in September 2025. One of the key recommendations of the report is that the government should develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to address Canada's lawful access challenges, drawing from the committee's review and findings. The government has acted decisively through the introduction of Bill C-22, the lawful access act. I sincerely hope that the member opposite will support it.
I want to reiterate the important work that is done by each and every member of the committee. I am fully aware that the mandate of the committee has been up for review since October 2022. The government is fully cognizant of this. I know and believe that this will be done in due time. I know that the member opposite asked the minister this very same question again in question period today, and the minister will report back to the House on this very same issue as soon as an answer can be given.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I do take the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice at her word. She is somebody I really enjoyed working with while we were on NSICOP. I know she firmly believes in the importance of the committee. I am not trying to take away from the incredible work that NSICOP has done over the last seven or eight years of its existence.
My point is that we need that review now because the act can be improved upon. I think the committee's continued work and its ability to do even more things, not only to help the government but also to help Parliament and all Canadians, is extremely important.
To her point on Bill C-22, she has my personal commitment that I will do everything in my power to get it to committee and make sure that it gets the necessary scrutiny and review, something I believe in.
I just want to end with saying that the review of the NSICOP Act needs to happen now.
Mr. Speaker, that is duly noted.
I have two points. First, the member opposite will support Bill C-22, and I applaud him for that.
The second point is that we understand that a review of the committee is long overdue, and the minister will report to the House as soon as he has news on that.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer