I have to cut off the member to give the hon. deputy government House leader a chance to respond.
Steven MacKinnon Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things,
(a) 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, making or publishing false or misleading information respecting elections and the candidate nomination process;
(b) establish new prohibitions in relation to voting in a nomination contest or leadership contest;
(c) prohibit the acceptance or use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties, including from anonymous sources;
(d) provide for new requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information; and
(e) expand the scope of certain provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of that Act, including by increasing the maximum administrative monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations and by granting the Commissioner of Canada Elections certain powers in respect of any conspiracy or attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to, a contravention of that Act.
The enactment also enacts a statute to change the name of certain electoral districts as a result of proposals by the members of the House of Commons who represent those electoral districts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-25s:
This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-25, the Strong and Free Elections Act, aims to modernize Canada’s electoral system by addressing foreign interference, disinformation, and excessively long ballots. The proposed legislation strengthens political financing rules, enhances cybersecurity, tightens privacy requirements for political parties, and increases enforcement powers for election officials.
Liberal
Conservative
Bloc
Strong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to cut off the member to give the hon. deputy government House leader a chance to respond.
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I used to be a staffer here. I remember a time when we all used our time in the House to inform Canadians, not mislead them, not switch information to sound like what it is not. I really want us to get back to that place.
Strong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25, which is an encouraging piece of legislation.
I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference.
Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today.
Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o'clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted.
Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously. That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate.
Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20, building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion.
They wanted to call it quits early yesterday. All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives' desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time.
Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16—
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance? I understand that broad breadth is given with respect to our debates, but this has nothing to do with Bill C-25.
Strong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
As the member knows, members have wide latitude during debate to make commentary. I am sure the member was leading it back to Bill C-25.
I will let the parliamentary secretary continue.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25, as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20, dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast.
Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again. They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate.
After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate. Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is well into his speech and I have yet to hear one word about Bill C-25.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of anything more relevant to a debate than talking about the way other members in the House have been participating in that debate.
Strong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
That is not a point of order.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That is actually a point of order. God, you do not even know what you are talking about.
Strong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
To the chief government whip, through the Chair, please.
Members have wide latitude during debate to speak about whatever matters, ancillary or connected to a particular piece of legislation. I think the parliamentary secretary was returning to the bill, so I will let him finish.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting.
On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing.
Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting.
One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation.
It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot. The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate.
Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections.
There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader—
Strong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, here we have on display peak Liberal hypocrisy. Only the member for Winnipeg North can spend his entire speech complaining about wasting time instead of actually doing something besides wasting time and addressing Bill C‑25.
There were issues around foreign interference that the Liberals knew about in one of their ridings, where Han Dong was chosen as a Liberal candidate. It was noted in the Hogue commission.
Why is there nothing in Bill C‑25 that would address the foreign interference in so many Liberal nominations?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates.
I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.