Debates of April 16th, 2026

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-25. I will be sharing my time with the member for Carleton.

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.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

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.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

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?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

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.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

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?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

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.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

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?

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

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?

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

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?

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I am afraid the member's time has expired.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

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.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind the member to address his comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Ponoka—Didsbury.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

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.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

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?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

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.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

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.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

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.