Debates of April 24th, 2026

The House resumed from April 16 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.

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to an important piece of legislation that I know Canadians, as a whole, what to see enacted for the upcoming election, whenever that might be. There are significant changes to reinforce Canada's democracy in a very positive way. One of the gravest mistakes we can make as parliamentarians is to take our democracy for granted. That is something this government will not do. We understand and appreciate the need for changing the Elections Act, ensuring the security and protection of our future elections, and even what takes place between elections.

First, I approach this issue from a personal perspective of having been blessed by the residents of Winnipeg North in many ways. For five provincial elections, I represented the wonderful constituency of Inkster, and for six federal elections, I have represented Winnipeg North. I have been a candidate more than a dozen times. Obviously, not every election was successful, but I truly appreciate the efforts and support I received, whether it is from family, volunteers or, most importantly, the residents of Winnipeg North. That is why, in all circumstances, I like to believe that I put the residents of Winnipeg North first and foremost in making sure they are represented, whether it is in the city of Winnipeg or here in Ottawa. I want to give a special shout-out of appreciation and express my gratitude in being the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North.

Having said that, I mention it in part because I understand the many dynamics of an election and what occurs during an election. One thing that is nice about this legislation is that it does not just deal with the election period. There are all sorts of activities that take place year-round that we need to at least be aware of. Bill C-25, which is before us today, deals with a number of issues. I know some have more of a public interest, if I can put it that way, for example the issue of counting unduly long ballots. That has been an issue in by-elections and in the last couple of general elections, and justifiably so. We do not want to do anything to discourage candidates who, generally speaking, want to represent a constituency. I ran against many of them over the years. It is important to recognize that public policy has always enabled individuals interested in putting their name forward, getting material out, knocking on doors and meeting with the voters. This is something we want to and will protect. Let there be no doubt about that.

However, one thing we have experienced is a long list of names being submitted in order to prove a political point, to a certain degree. As a result, it has brought a great deal of confusion to the process. What we are suggesting in this legislation is that two specific actions be taken. The first action is to say that voters will now be able to sign only one nomination form for a candidate, and each candidate in the riding will need a unique official agent. As we all know, those who want to be candidates in an election, whether federal or provincial, have to get signatures. The signatures are required. I remember an argument about why they need to get signatures, as opposed to giving money to register their name. They have to show some intent and get out there and get support. They have to get 100 or whatever number of signatures in order to be able to say they have knocked on doors or visited the voters in the area and acquired, either themselves or through their volunteers, the required number of signatures in order to get their names placed on the ballot. Some have chosen to take that particular rule and ultimately say, “Here are 100 candidates. Will you sign off on 100 candidates?” This is something I believe would help address the issue of the long ballot.

The other is the official agent. Today's official agent does so much for every campaign. I suspect there is not a member of Parliament in the House of Commons today who would not recognize how important our official agents are in a campaign. That person is a very busy person during an election and post-election. I find it very hard to imagine how one individual can be an official agent for 100 candidates or a large number of candidates in one riding. We are not saying that an official agent cannot be an official agent for two or three or whatever number of candidates, but in different ridings, if that is the real desire. When I was with the Manitoba Liberal Party as an MLA, we would often get one official agent working with several different candidates, but in different ridings.

I believe those two measures in particular would deal appropriately with the countering of what I would suggest are unduly long ballots. This is something I believe our constituents want to see.

Combatting deepfakes to mislead is another very serious issue this legislation attempts to deal with. It would be expanded to ensure that it applies to realistic deepfakes. Of course, political satire and parodies would be exempt. Anything that is in good-faith views, if I can put it that way, we are not after that at all with the legislation. It is not an issue of trying to put in place censorship.

One of the things we need to recognize is that technology has advanced, and I am truly amazed at what a combination of AI and a mischievous mind can actually do to deceive people. We have to be aware of that. More and more, we are going to see deepfakes, especially in close ridings, where candidate X is saying something on social media but in reality it is not the candidate actually saying it. This is because of the evolution of AI and high tech and, as I say, mischievous volunteers, which is putting it nicely. Their intent is to mislead the voter in a way that is going to have an impact on the life of a candidate and on the ultimate results in an election.

It is absolutely critical that we, as a House, deal with that issue. The legislation attempts to do just that, by targeting the misuse and abuse we have seen already, to a certain degree, in regard to election information. I remember, a couple of elections back, the use of what they called robocalls, where an area was told that a poll station had been changed. It was a misdirection of a large number of voters, using a voice broadcast, robocalls or whatever we want to call it. It is all the same. Hundreds if not thousands of people are contacted and told something that is just not true and that is meant to prevent that particular person from voting or to discourage someone from voting by telling them where their poll station is or that it has been closed. These types of things have happened in the past, and I suspect they could happen again in the future. It is one of the reasons it is absolutely critically important that we move on that issue.

In terms of foreign interference, we have found and learned that a lot of these activities do not just occur inside Canada. For example, if we have a mischievous volunteer, to put it nicely, who happens to be outside of Canada, the laws from within would in fact apply to that individual. A lot of the rules we have would apply, and that is the way it should be.

I would ultimately argue that the recommendations and the legislation that we have before us today are based on the foreign interference inquiry, the Canada elections group and the commissioner of Canada elections, all of which, either directly or indirectly, have contributed to the legislation we have here, not to mention the feedback we have from previous standing committees or members expressing their opinions through news media and so forth. It is very much a holistic approach to dealing with the issue of our elections.

There are areas where we would be protecting the nomination and leadership contestants, such as undue foreign influence on how to vote in contests, offering or accepting bribes about how to vote in a contest, intimidating someone on how to vote in a contest, realistic deepfakes of contestants that intend to mislead, misleading publications falsely purporting to be issued by a contestant, and unauthorized use of a computer to affect the conduct or results of an election.

Again, I would emphasize that this is not about censorship. We are not talking about good-faith views. That is a very important aspect, because we can easily slide down that slippery slope. It is recognizing the need for some of these changes to take place.

We have the cabinet directive. Things take place during an election, but we also need to recognize that things can take place in between elections. The cabinet directive on the coordinated response to threats to elections would be extended, justifiably so. Membership of that would include the Clerk of the Privy Council, the national security to the PM, the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety. Think in terms of foreign affairs and where we could develop an all-party consensus in a non-partisan way. The potential incidents that may be threats to the integrity of our elections are what this panel would deal with, and not only during elections. We have to think outside of elections. That is something the legislation also deals with.

There are a number of measures within the legislation that deal with what would be classified as AMPs or financial penalties and provide opportunities for the commissioner to be able to deal with violations.

Not all violations should be treated equally, I would suggest. I had an incident, for example, on election day. I was out doing some car waving and we had a Facebook Live, and then we boosted the Facebook Live. Technically, candidates cannot do that on election day because it is considered an advertisement. It was absolutely innocent. No one even thought it was wrong.

Ensuring that we have increased opportunity for administrative monetary penalties with these changes is something that all members should support. Members will find that these penalties have been applied to different candidates and political parties. It would allow for a more efficient system, in the sense that honest mistakes do happen.

However, when the mistakes are intentional, that is when we need to ensure that there are teeth within the legislation and that we have the opportunity to ensure that there is some accountability. This is something that is within the legislation in a very real way, to ensure that individuals who are directly or even indirectly involved are so in such a manner that does not take away from or threaten Canada's democracy.

Nowadays there are many things that can take place during an election that could have a profound impact on the outcomes. We saw this just recently with Tatiana in her riding, winning with one vote in the last federal election. Every vote counts. I was really encouraged, I must say on a side point, to see that her margin went from one vote to 800 votes. The example validates the importance of every vote, and we should collectively never take it for granted.

Canada is very fortunate, in the sense that we have Elections Canada as an independent agency. Elections Canada is recognized around the world for the fine work it does in protecting the institution of our democracy here at home. I have had the opportunity to have many discussions with election officials, and I have always reinforced my confidence, even if at times I disagree with some of the things that are being said, in Elections Canada and Elections Manitoba, because I believe it is absolutely critical that we recognize the work they do and respect it. Part of that is looking at ways we can continue to improve the system.

I would like to share some personal thoughts in regard to changes. We hear a lot about how to get more people to vote. I believe there are things we can do. Some jurisdictions have done it a little better than other jurisdictions. I, for one, for example, believe that given today's technology, we could incorporate some of the more high-profile areas like malls. Canadians love going to the mall. If we can better utilize those types of public and private facilities to make it easier for Canadians to vote, I am game for it, and I would encourage Elections Canada and provincial and territorial jurisdictions to look at ways we can enhance voters' opportunities to vote.

I am not convinced about Internet voting. I have not been sold on it, far from it. I suspect that Elections Canada at the very least is looking into that area. I would very much want more public discussion on voting over the Internet. With respect to mail-in ballots, I think, again, that I am open to some more dialogue on that. Mail-in ballots have actually increased. I am all for including advance polling within the legislation and for looking at how we can increase voter participation.

I look forward to the bill's coming back from third reading after it goes through committee, because I know that, like me, members of all political parties have a keen interest in how our elections are run. I know that the minister and the government as a whole are very much open to good ideas if we can improve the legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's presence. I hope he is doing well.

What I would say is simply that the Chief Electoral Officer, years ago, went to the PROC committee and asked the government to do something about the ballot issue of having the longest ballot committee causing such consternation in repeated by-election after by-election, and even in the last election.

Does the hon. member regret how his government let Canadian voters down by waiting so long to introduce the simple amendment to the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what pleases me is that when Canada elected a new Prime Minister less than a year ago, the Prime Minister made the issue a priority. It has taken us not years but months to bring the legislation before the House, and not only the legislation but also a tangible idea that would actually deal with the issue.

I believe that by having voters able to nominate only one candidate in a particular riding, and by ensuring that we could not have one official agent for 100 candidates in the same riding, the issue with the long ballots would be resolved. I anticipate that the opposition will support that aspect of the legislation.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my question with a comment. I did not raise a point of order, but the member referred to the member for Terrebonne by her given name rather than by her riding name, which should not happen in the House. Perhaps that escaped the Speaker's attention, so I just wanted to give my friend opposite a friendly reminder of that. I do not have an issue with anything he said except that.

Here is the question that I want to ask. The bill before us this morning seeks to prevent people from signing more than one nomination paper. I think it is a mistake to do that because it could result in fewer candidates running in an election. Of course, one of the objectives of this bill is to limit the number of candidates. We agree with that objective, but we do not think that this particular measure is necessary. The other measures in the bill are more than sufficient to achieve that end.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that voters are being asked to sign only one nomination paper. I think that poses a risk of making their votes public, because people will sign only the nomination papers of the candidate they plan to vote for. That is a significant concern.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. The member for Terrebonne is an outstanding individual, and we are very pleased.

I understand what the member is saying. The government has already put forward the legislation, and it is fairly substantive. A number of changes are being proposed. There is an opportunity. As much as possible, we want to try to build consensus on the many different aspects within the legislation. If there are some specifics, I would be happy, as the parliamentary secretary ultimately trying to provide some advice on the legislation, to advance it within the government if the member feels frustrated in any way.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in Bill C-25 that I think are important and supportive. I am feeling charitable this morning, so I am going to mention three different areas and will let the parliamentary secretary decide where he might want to respond.

First, I think it is important that Bill C-25 would extend some of the foreign interference provisions into nominations and into leadership contests. Second, I like the provisions around political financing and walking a balance with regard to transparency, and also the idea that sometimes advance notice has drawn in a whole host of protest, I think unfairly disallowing Canadians from participating in political financing in a way that should be supported. The last piece is around artificial intelligence. There is a piece in the bill around putting in stronger provisions, particularly in a world where there is a rise of disinformation online and how that can be accelerated by artificial intelligence.

The parliamentary secretary can decide which of the three he wants to raise, but I would like his thoughts on one of those three subjects.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all those issues are very important. I believe that the greatest threat to our democracy today, if we do not take action on it, is artificial intelligence and the potential for what I call a mischievous volunteer, a third party.

Everything can be tapped into it today through social media and different forms of communication. My concern is that it does not take very much time to cause a lot of confusion, especially when, through the use of AI, there can be a so-called candidate saying something the candidate did not say. It concerns me greatly, and I do not think we have done enough on that particular issue.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the earlier reply to my question, the member said that Canadians elected a prime minister. I think that is a misnomer that we need to correct. Canadians elect MPs.

In fact, last night on a panel, Althia Raj said, “This Prime Minister definitely has an authoritarian streak. We've seen this with all types of legislation. I was struck after the by-election when he referred to his MPs in English as his ‘deputies’. At first he was saying that. I thought it was just an error in translation; he means ‘députés’, and then he was just saying it in English. But then he keeps repeating it, so I'm starting to wonder if he actually thinks members of Parliament are his deputies to do his bidding in the House of Commons, which is not their job.”

Does the member believe he is the deputy to the Prime Minister, or does he serve his riding?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I said right at the very beginning of my comments that my first priority is the constituents I represent. I sit in a wonderful national caucus that has 174 members. I can assure the member that we are all equal in our caucus.

Yes, the Prime Minister has a mission. The mission is very simple: to build the strongest economy in the G7, to build Canada strong for all Canadians. Every Liberal member of Parliament has gladly accepted and agreed that this is our goal. Every Liberal member of Parliament will strive seven days a week to ensure that Canada becomes the strongest and healthiest country in the G7.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are good things in this bill.

Obviously, we want to improve it, including with regard to party financing. The Bloc Québécois once introduced a bill to reinstate public party financing and lower the limit on personal donations to ensure that parties are not funded purely by the wealthiest individuals, a practice that often grants them privileged access.

Why does the government not consider reinstating this system of public funding for political parties, where each vote would be associated with a specific amount? As I recall, it was the Chrétien government that implemented this system in 2004 before it was abolished.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the issue of financing political parties and so forth. It is with pride that I can say that we can contrast Canada's financial accountability and the way in which we raise funds to that of the provinces and other countries.

Some of the provinces, I would suggest, might need some improvement. I do not know the details of the provinces, but at the national level, I think that in many ways Canada leads the G20 countries in how we appropriately ensure that there is a sense of equality, and that the people we represent understand and appreciate that politicians, at least here in Canada, are not going to be bought off by someone giving a $5,000 donation to their campaign.

I like the way we structure the financing of political parties. I think it has been done exceptionally well over the last number of elections since it was implemented. Again, if the member has—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. His time for questions and comments has elapsed.

For government bills, at the end of the five hours, it switches. Members no longer need to indicate that they are splitting their time. If members are interested, they can find the speaking rules for government legislation, what happens before and after the five hours, in Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 74.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start this morning by thanking my grade 2 social studies teacher, Mrs. Rose Klein. It was many election cycles ago when I was in her class, which is where I first learned about elections. I could not have imagined that one day I would be standing here on the floor of the House of Commons debating a bill to make changes to the Canada Elections Act. That certainly speaks to the importance of having positive role models in one's life.

Bill C-25 is an act to make certain amendments to the Canada Elections Act. I think we can all agree that the integrity of the electoral process is fundamental to our democracy. While many Canadians may watch politics on TV and may talk politics over coffee, I think it is fair to say that for the vast majority of Canadians, their most important and meaningful contribution to the democratic process is to actually go down to the polling station on election day and mark an X by the name of the candidate of their choice. Therefore, it is important that we as lawmakers get this right.

Of particular concern in recent years are the disruptive activities of a group calling itself the longest ballot committee. Quite simply, it is a group of troublemakers who seek to disrupt the electoral process by recruiting large numbers of frivolous candidates who then flood Elections Canada offices with paperwork. As a result, ridings targeted by the longest ballot committee have, as the name implies, unmanageably long ballots, up to a metre in length in some cases. In last year's general election in the riding of Carleton, and in several by-elections in previous years, nearly 100 candidates appeared on the ballot. This has led to excessively long paper ballots and a great deal of frustration among voters and Elections Canada workers. In fact, Elections Canada actually had to change the format of the ballot to be write-in ballots for a by-election last year and another by-election last week, because of the disruptive activities of the longest ballot committee.

Last fall, the procedure and House affairs committee studied this matter in depth, and I was pleased to see the broad consensus among MPs from all parties to fix this problem. In fact, one of the recommendations of the committee's final report was for the government to introduce legislation to close some of the loopholes in the Canada Elections Act that were being exploited by the longest ballot committee. That legislation has come to the House of Commons in the form of Bill C-25, which we are debating here today.

I would like to go through a few of the report's recommendations in detail and share my thoughts about the potential effectiveness of curtailing the disruptive activities of the longest ballot committee.

The first recommendation relates to collecting signatures for a candidate's nomination papers. Right now, in order to run for a seat in the House of Commons, a candidate's paperwork must include the signatures of 100 eligible voters in the candidate's riding. However, there is presently no rule against a person signing the nomination papers of more than one candidate. There is also no rule against people signing the papers before the candidate's name has been filled in at the top. What the longest ballot committee was doing was getting people to sign the papers of many different candidates while the candidate's name was still left blank. This made it easier for it to recruit frivolous candidates whose only intention was to disrupt the electoral process. Bill C-25 closes this loophole by allowing people to sign the nomination papers of one candidate only. While I do not believe this will solve the problem completely, it will constrain the ability of the longest ballot committee to get frivolous candidates on the ballot.

Another matter that received considerable attention at the procedure and House affairs committee was the official agents for candidates. The Canada Elections Act requires that each candidate have an official agent, but there is nothing stopping one person from serving as the official agent for multiple candidates in the same riding.

I know that everyone enjoys a good sports analogy, so I will relay to the House that some of the witnesses at committee said that allowing one person to serve as the official agent for multiple candidates in the same riding was like the coach being allowed to coach multiple teams in the same league. That is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law, given that elections are inherently competitive processes. I am glad to see that particular recommendation has made its way into Bill C-25 as well.

However, I would again caution members from believing that this would completely solve the problem. Indeed, in last week's by-election in Terrebonne, which was one of the ridings targeted by the longest ballot committee, the longest ballot committee did have unique official agents for almost all of the candidates. If I could make a prediction about the effectiveness of unique official agents in future elections, it would seem that instead of the longest ballot committee recruiting, say, 100 frivolous candidates, they would have to settle for recruiting 50 frivolous candidates and 50 frivolous official agents, which is no doubt a significant improvement, but probably not enough to dissuade the longest ballot committee from interfering with future elections. In summary, I think that the official recommendations in the committee's report and their inclusion in Bill C-25 is a positive step to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee.

I would be surprised if it solved the problem completely. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight one of the other ideas that witnesses discussed at committee but was not included in the official recommendations in the final report, namely the reinstatement of mandatory monetary deposits by the candidates. For context, it used to be that a $1,000 deposit was required when a candidate registered to run in an election in this country. In 2017, this requirement was ruled unconstitutional after a court challenge by the same people behind the longest ballot committee. It was this court case that opened the door for the longest ballot committee and their current practice of running large numbers of frivolous candidates, all at no cost to themselves.

I would also like to mention that while the judge's ruling indicated that a $1,000 deposit was an unreasonable infringement of section 3 of the charter, the ruling left open the possibility of a deposit of a smaller, less burdensome amount. It is also worth noting that in last week's by-election in Terrebonne and in last year's by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot, many of the longest ballot committee candidates did not receive a single vote. They could not convince a single person to vote for them, nor could they be bothered to show up to vote for themselves.

Therefore, my personal view and my personal suggestion is that if the measures included in Bill C-25 are not sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee, then the next step should be to revisit the idea of a very nominal deposit and the requirement of receiving a very nominal number of votes on election day. Doing so would cause frivolous candidates to think twice before reaching into their wallets, while at the same time respecting the charter rights of non-frivolous candidates. Hopefully it does not come to that.

I am hopeful that the measures introduced in Bill C-25 will be sufficient. I look forward to supporting this bill going to committee and having it studied in further detail. In summary, I will be pleased to vote for this bill at second reading. I look forward to any questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member's comments. However, I disagree with the idea that one would have to make a financial deposit in order to be able to say to the people they want to represent that they want their name on the ballot.

I am inclined to support the court decision. However, I would again recommend that the member give it more thought. I can recall an incident where someone said to me, “Why is it that the volunteers can collect signatures for your nomination? Why are you not obligated to acquire them?” That might be an alternative.

The PROC committee has an opportunity, as soon we can get the legislation to the committee. In second reading, I often promote getting bills to committee—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance for the member for Regina—Wascana to respond.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on becoming a grandfather for the fourth time, earlier this month. I wish him well with the new bundle of joy.

I am hopeful that the measures in Bill C-25 are sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee. However, I think it is very telling that its members were the ones behind the 2017 court case, which struck down the requirement of the $1,000 deposit. It is also very telling that, after that court case, they opened the door to their current disruptive activities. We will have to take a wait-and-see approach, and we will have to wait and see.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does not reform political party financing to restore public funding.

As we know, the more an individual can donate, the more likely it is to create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption. For example, there was a case where a former prime minister authorized the opening of a new bank in Toronto specifically for the Chinese community in British Columbia. The very next day, he received 45 donations to his riding, each at the maximum amount, from individuals who were members of those communities in Toronto and British Columbia.

All this corruption, or the appearance of corruption, could be eliminated by introducing public funding for political parties and limiting the amount individuals can donate.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certainly undue influence and undue foreign influence is a concern in our elections.

It is good to have a large number of grassroots Canadians participating in the democratic process, which is certainly preferable to a small number of well-to-do insiders. However, I would caution against the idea of public funds for parties or a per-vote subsidy for parties. If individuals want to get people to vote for them, they have to go out, knock on doors and do some fundraising at the same time. I think that having a nominal amount of fundraising for candidates and for parties is a good thing.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill famously remarked that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. The parliamentary system is not a perfect system. It is only as good as the actors in it. When 93% of the electorate votes for the party and not for the candidate, and only 7% vote for the candidate, that is a distortion of democracy in the way parliamentary democracy is set up.

The member mentioned reinstating the $1,000, because the same problem applies to the people in the long ballot. They are doing this. I was wondering if the member could talk about the $1,000 reinstatement—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to let the member for Regina—Wascana respond, in less than 30 seconds.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I should be clear that I am hopeful the measures included in Bill C-25 are sufficient to curtail the activities of the longest ballot committee. If they are not, then we will be right back here scratching our heads and looking for new ways to curtail its activities. I think that mandatory deposits are the most promising way, given the past activities of the committee.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House of Commons to speak in support of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.

This legislation represents an important step in protecting Canada's electoral process in a variety of ways, including from emerging challenges posed, as my colleague across the way just mentioned, by the efforts of the longest ballot committee to make things more difficult and more challenging for Elections Canada. The bill deals with the challenges posed by an official agent being able to serve as an official agent for more than one candidate. It also deals with the challenges that are posed by emerging technological threats, such as the misuse of artificial intelligence. For the sake of my remarks here in the House today, I would like to focus on the latter.

Modern technology has transformed how we communicate and access information. It connects us, informs us and strengthens participation in our democracy, but it can be misused. Bill C-25 recognizes this emerging challenge and includes a clear and necessary response to a particularly challenging application of artificial intelligence. Of course, I am referring to deepfake technology. Deepfakes are artificially generated or manipulated images, videos or audio recordings that make it appear as though someone has said or done something, even if they never did. These fabrications can be highly convincing, and a reasonable person could be tricked into believing that they are real.

Under the Canada Elections Act, it is already illegal to impersonate certain electoral actors, including, of course, the candidates and the chief electoral officer, with the intent of misleading voters. However, these provisions were developed before the rapid rise of modern technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and they do not fully capture the risk posed by deepfake technology. Bill C-25 would modernize this framework. It explicitly extends the existing impersonation offences to include the creation and distribution of realistic and misleading images, videos and audio of electoral actors intended to deceive Canadians.

We have seen cases around the world where audio and video deepfakes of political figures have been used to spread disinformation. Canada is not immune to these challenges. Canadian cybersecurity experts made that clear in their recent assessment of threats to the democratic process. For example, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security issued a warning that AI is already reshaping the way that elections are being targeted.

In just two years, we went from a few isolated incidents to more than 100 cases of AI being used to interfere with over 25% of global elections held between 2023 and 2024. This is no hypothetical risk, but a real and growing trend. Furthermore, the tools behind this trend are getting cheaper, faster and more readily available by the day. What once required sophisticated resources can now be accomplished using widely available, inexpensive software.

Democracy is built on trust. Voters must be able to make decisions based on reliable information.

If we do not take action, and take action now, what we will inevitably see in the years ahead is the erosion of trust in our democratic process. That is precisely the malicious objective of those who deploy these tools. It is because of our robust election laws and the general health of our democratic system that our cybersecurity experts have assessed that it is unlikely that disinformation from artificial intelligence would, on its own, undermine the integrity of our elections. It will not happen yet, and that is reassuring, but it is not a reason to delay action. The same experts emphasize that technology is improving and access to it is expanding rapidly. In short, we know the threat is growing and we need to take action.

As Parliament has responded to evolving challenges to our elections on a regular basis in the past, we must act again. Through Bill C-25, we are doing exactly that. We are being proactive, as we should be, in addressing this rapidly emerging issue. By expanding the existing ban on impersonation to capture deepfakes, we are sending a powerful message that Canada will not allow technological mischief to undermine the integrity of our elections.

Let me also emphasize that this addition reflects an appropriate balance between protecting free speech and combatting malicious interference. This bill would not restrict legitimate political expression, nor would it limit political debate or target opinion, criticism or satire. In fact, the Canada Elections Act explicitly permits parody and other forms of lawful expression that are an important part of our democratic discourse. Bill C-25 would not change that. Instead, what Bill C-25 targets is intentional deception, specifically the use of synthetic media to mislead voters about real people or events.

To be clear, the Canada Elections Act already prohibits fraud and false statements during elections. Deepfakes are nothing more than a sophisticated version of the same practices, using technology to manipulate voices and images, rather than enlisting a person to pose as someone else.

These examples are not expressions of opinion. They are tools for manipulation, and there must be clear consequences for using them.

That is an important part of this piece of legislation that finds that balance to allow the electorate freedom of speech, especially during elections. Every single one of us in this room is here because we ran in an election. We debated. We perhaps had town halls and invited our citizens to challenge our ideas. Every one of us here has had somebody disagree with some of what we have put forward personally or with what perhaps our party or our leader has put forward as an idea or a policy. That is protected, and will always be protected. This piece of legislation would not change that.

Bill C-25 proposes targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect and secure our elections. It aims to ensure that, when Canadians participate in an election, they can do so based on reliable information from trusted sources. This is about preserving the integrity of our democratic processes in the face of rapidly changing technology. Throughout our history, Canada has adapted its institutions to meet new challenges, and this would be no different. We have strengthened safeguards in response to evolving threats in the past, and we have done so while upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms that define us as a proud nation.

The Canada Elections Act is renowned for its election safeguards, robust political financing rules and transparency requirements as a result of continual, gradual updates and improvements put forward by members on all sides of this House, from all political parties, on both sides of the aisle. Bill C-25 would add reasonable guardrails. It is measured and targeted to the challenges we face. It reflects the reality that the nature of electoral interference is changing and that our laws must change with it.

I invite all members to support this legislation and, when it goes to committee, to add ways we can improve upon it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for my colleague.

From my understanding of the bill, the government would be released from the obligation to disclose the names and addresses of donors. Is that indeed the case? If that is so, I think it opens the door to corruption.

If people can make donations as high as $1,700 and their names are not disclosed, there is no longer a way to check whether ministers are giving access to certain activities based on donations. There are also all the examples of corruption that have already been identified.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the case. However, I encourage my hon. colleague to share his concerns when the bill gets to committee. I also encourage him to discuss how we can improve the bill to head off the examples he mentioned.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments, especially in regard to AI, deepfakes and so on. It is important for us to recognize that the legislation is in no way meant to have a censorship of sorts. In fact, we want to protect the integrity of our democratic system. That is what this legislation is all about. Given technological advances, AI and mischievous characters, whether it is an individual or another state, this type of legislation is needed.

I wonder if the member could provide further thoughts as to why it is important that we address the changes in technology we have witnessed over the last number of years.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, something I feel really strongly about is that this piece of legislation is for the next generation of Canadians. It is for our children. One of the big fears I have is not taking action on the emerging threats we are seeing and, when my son, who is currently 11, goes to vote for the first time seven years from now, he is living in a Canada that has not addressed the issue of deepfakes, so he is living in a Canada where it is difficult to know what is real and what is not real.

I am very happy to see there might be bipartisan support for this piece of legislation, because I do feel this is incredibly important, not just for us, but for future generations, in safeguarding our electoral process.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does it not occur to my friend from Vaudreuil that it is time to revisit what Jean Chrétien put forward as the most advanced financing laws in Canada, and there have been other points made by other members, to encourage Canadians to vote and to give people a reason to vote, even if they are in a so-called safe riding for a party they do not favour, and restore the per vote support?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We will need to find out after Statements by Members and question period what the member thinks about that.

Yukon Tourism

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that when someone visits the Yukon, they will come back. In fact, they may never leave. There are raw adventures, like the gruelling Arctic Ultra in 40 below, or the luxury of viewing northern lights from a fire-warmed cabin. We have it all, and we have it for anyone: hot springs, dog-sledding, kayaking, hiking, or paddling downriver to Dawson City to take in the show at Diamond Tooth Gerties after a soak in the spa.

Sharing this extraordinary scenery, culture and community with the world is an important part of our local economy. Tourism represents close to 5% of the territory's GDP, and the industry is still growing.

I am proud of the investments our government has made toward Yukon tourism, including funding for Josie's Old Crow Adventures, alpine glamping, wellness on the land, the MacBride Museum and many more.

On this final day of National Tourism Week, led by the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, I salute and thank the operators, guides, entrepreneurs, artists and community leaders who make every visit to the Yukon an unforgettable experience.

Alvie Burden

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay homage to World War II veteran Alvie Burden. Alvie was a resident of Armstrong, British Columbia, and was not only Armstrong's oldest veteran but also Canada's oldest Black veteran of the Second World War.

Born in Tisdale, Saskatchewan, in 1922, Alvie Burden joined the Canadian Forces at the age of 19 and was posted to the Saskatoon Light Infantry regiment. Alvie served more than 21 months in the Italian and Dutch campaigns and was the only Black member of his company. In Italy, Alvie Burden was nearly killed in action by shrapnel wounds to his head and wrists. Thankfully, Alvie made his recovery, lived on and helped younger generations understand the realities of war, until he passed on March 26 at the age of 104 years old.

Alvie Burden's service reminds us today of the sacrifices that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have made and continue to make on our behalf. Lest we forget.

Medhat Sabet Mahdy

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the YMCA of Greater Toronto is grounded in six core values: inclusiveness, integrity, kindness, optimism, respect and well-being. Once in a lifetime, we may encounter someone who truly lives and breathes these ideals.

Medhat Sabet Mahdy, the former president and CEO of the YMCA of Greater Toronto, was one of those rare individuals. Earlier this month, sadly, he passed away. He was an inspiring community builder who was named to the Order of Canada in recognition of his more than 50 years serving the YMCA, which he transformed into a place for social infrastructure and health equity. He championed causes like combatting anti-Black racism and youth homelessness and expanding child care centres.

His impact on Scarborough—Agincourt is ongoing through his work on the Bridletowne Neighbourhood Centre, a project that, when completed, will serve as a physical embodiment of his vision, compassion and unwavering commitment. Medhat's life's work will continue to resonate for generations to come.

Smile on.

National Volunteer Week

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Volunteer Week, I want to thank the remarkable people who are the heart of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes: our volunteers.

These are people like Chief Fire Prevention Officer Brent Norton, with 45 years of service, and Captain John Houston, with 30 years of service, both as firefighters with the Prescott Fire Department; North Grenville's volunteer of the year, Victor Desroches; Wendy Galloway, who received a lifetime volunteer achievement award from the Brockville Chamber of Commerce; and Tye Carswell of the Gananoque Minor Hockey Association.

Whether they are volunteering at the Delta Maple Syrup Festival, the Spencerville Fair, the Cardinal LabourFest or the Athens Cornfest; with the Brockville or Gananoque food banks, the Westport Legion or Senior Support Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville; or with churches, historical societies, agricultural societies and more from Rideau Lakes to Front of Yonge, I want to thank every volunteer in our community. They are the foundation of this incredible community that I am proud to serve and that we share as our home.

Recognition of Vaudreuil Students

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible students being honoured at this year's Montérégie West Community Network youth gala, an annual event that celebrates anglophone students in my community of Vaudreuil who demonstrate perseverance, excellence and leadership in their schools and in their community. These young people have worked hard to overcome challenges and stay focused on their goals. Their determination and commitment set a strong example for their peers and remind us of the important role youth play in shaping our collective future.

I want to thank the organizers, teachers, principals, parents, mentors and caregivers who support these students each and every day and help create opportunities for them to succeed. Without their guidance and love, these students simply could not reach their full potential.

I am proud of the students being honoured, and our community of Vaudreuil is proud of them too. They have worked hard, and in their own way, they have made their mark. Their dedication inspires us all, and I wish them every success in the years ahead. I have no doubt this is just the beginning of wonderful things to come.

Government Policies

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is one year into the Liberal government's mandate. That means it is report card time.

Let us have a look at how the Liberals are doing: negotiating a trade deal with the United States, fail; making housing more affordable, fail; addressing the rising cost of living, fail; lowering government spending, fail; getting immigration under control, fail.

Across the board, the Liberal government has earned a failing grade, but it is not the Liberals being held back, it is Canadians. The young couple who cannot afford a first home, the auto worker whose shift got cut, the small business owner who woke up to a 25% tariff and the farmer with nowhere to sell are all being held back.

The Prime Minister wants to talk about forward guidance. How about he starts by looking back at 365 days of failure and the impact that has had on Canadians?

National Volunteer Week

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National Volunteer Week, a time to honour those who make our communities stronger, kinder and more connected.

Over the past year, I have had the privilege of recognizing outstanding volunteers and community leaders through monthly spotlights and community leadership awards, individuals like Jocelyn Hynes, Maranne Currie, Whitney Green, Steve and Gina Deveaux, Christina Lamey, Dennis Shea, Matt MacDonald, Angie MacDonald-Fraser, Heather Kerr and Faith Dillon, along with groups like the Cape Breton University hockey team and the volunteers of St. George's church.

Their compassion and dedication remind us that meaningful change begins at the community level. I invite all members to join me in thanking the volunteers of Sydney—Glace Bay and volunteers across Canada for all they do.

Resource Development

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today the Liberals want people to believe that they are in favour of pipelines, but it is all an illusion. Not so long ago, they declared that there was no business case for LNG development. The Liberal Prime Minister still has not gotten rid of the Liberals' antidevelopment laws.

In my home province of Saskatchewan, natural resource development is not an abstract. It makes up 10% to 15% of the provincial government's budget. It pays for hospitals, schools, roads and social services. As a landlocked province, Saskatchewan cannot prosper from these resources without pipelines.

For over a decade, the Liberal government has been all talk and no action on resource development. In the face of global trade threats, when will the Liberal government get serious about resource development? Instead of more recycled speeches and photo ops, we need to get shovels in the ground quickly for oil and gas infrastructure, to build strength at home and unbreakable leverage abroad.

National Volunteer Week

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the 52nd edition of National Volunteer Week draws to a close, it is with pride and gratitude that I wish to highlight the commitment of those who give so generously.

Helping a neighbour, supporting an elderly person, delivering a meal, providing transportation to a medical appointment, cooking, providing assistance, supporting, loving: That is what volunteering is all about. Without these guardian angels, countless people would be isolated, a huge number of young people would have no one to rely on, and many amateur sports would cease to exist. Being a volunteer means finding fulfilment through selfless giving; it means spreading smiles; it means sowing and reaping moments of happiness.

A great many organizations rely on volunteers, and I would particularly like to pay tribute to the volunteer centres that coordinate these generous efforts in D'Autray, Maskinongé, Matawini and throughout Quebec. Volunteers are the light that shines at the heart of our communities. I want to thank them for their daily dedication.

Charity Basketball Tournament

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you missed an amazing basketball game this Wednesday. The all-party basketball team made up of MPs and staff was victorious yet again this year, by just two points, against the parliamentary press team. It was done to support Christie Lake Kids, which is an incredible charity in my community of Ottawa Centre that provides recreational supports for so many kids in our community. The charity basketball tournament this year raised $20,000. It is just incredible.

I want to give a special shout-out to our teammates, the hon. members for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, La Prairie—Atateken, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, Victoria, Whitby, Honoré-Mercier and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. These were incredible players.

I also thank all of the parliamentary press gallery members, the sponsors, the volunteers, the staff and the Christie Lake Kids staff team for making this such an incredible event.

Auto Industry

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am raising the alarm bells about Ontario's auto sector. The sector depends on access to the U.S. market. The sector has paid $5 billion in tariffs over the last year. Passenger, car and light truck exports to the United States are plummeting.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association has said, “You cannot have a commercially viable automotive plant in Canada facing tariffs of that size.”

Toyota has said that tariffs have made manufacturing in Ontario “unsustainable”.

However, the government has given no date for formal negotiations on section 232 tariffs, unlike Mexico, and no explanation for the decision to go slow on the tariff negotiations. The auto sector and its workers are worried about the status quo. They need to know when tariff relief is in sight. Bleeding $5 billion a year is unsustainable. Something is going to break. The auto sector is running out of time while the government goes slow on its approach to the tariff negotiations.

Port of Churchill

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Prime Minister and this government believe in big projects. We understand the benefits of having jobs and building the strongest and healthiest economy in the G7.

I stand today because of the potential of the port of Churchill, which will connect the prairie provinces to the Atlantic Ocean directly. The potential is there. It is real. It is tangible.

We look to the Prime Minister, the premier of the province, the indigenous communities and the leadership to understand the value of the port of Churchill not only to Manitoba but to all of Canada.

I ask all parliamentarians to get onside and recognize the true value of these major projects.

Government Priorities

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' recently manufactured majority is starting to settle in. All of a sudden, they can move fast when it comes to grabbing control of committees to prevent scrutiny of their behaviour. The ethics, public accounts, and operations and estimates committees are important to ensure the public can trust that power is not being abused, and they are at risk of being taken over by the Liberals.

We never seem to have to look very far for glaring examples of why oversight is so important. There was the software scandal with almost $300 million wasted on failed e-prescribing. The program did not work. This latest boondoggle makes the ArriveCAN scandal look like a warm-up act.

While the Liberals complain about two-tier health care, they keep defending the $275 million spent on health care benefits for fake asylum claimants, benefits that Canadians do not have access to. This is Liberal logic.

Finally, I hope, as the week is not over, the Liberals are turning a gravel pit into a money pit, with $200 million spent for Liberal insiders to get rich, and they say that they are just getting started.

Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share some news that is great for Canada and for the Canadian Armed Forces. We confirmed this week that Canadian Armed Forces recruitment has reached its highest level in 30 years. The number of applications has more than doubled over the past year, reaching over 45,000.

On top of that, we have recruited 7,310 regular force members, surpassing our target. Our soldiers, sailors and aviators do important and incredible work. We need more of them. The Canadian Armed Forces' continued recruiting success signals much more than progress. It reflects a renewed strength at the core of our military. Our government is proud to reinvest in our forces to rearm them and rebuild them.

Food Security

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week our local food bank held a volunteer appreciation day to thank its supporters for the role they play in helping to address and solve issues of affordability within our community.

Project Share has been providing emergency food and support services to residents of Niagara Falls for more than 30 years. Sadly, more than ever, food banks in Niagara and across this country are being stretched beyond their limits by an affordability crisis caused by the Liberals.

The PM likes to remind himself, and anyone who will listen, that he is the smartest person in the room, yet he doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit and only added inflationary pressures to the economic hardship Canadians face today. On March 25, the PM told Canadians, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade”, but the more the Liberals spend, the worse inflation gets and the more Canadians struggle just to get by. If it is the best in over a decade, he should tell that to the two million Canadians who visit a food bank every month and to the 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls who have to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

International Association of Fire Fighters

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Ottawa was proud to host the 33rd Canadian Legislative Conference of the International Association of Fire Fighters. This annual gathering brings firefighters from across the country together to engage with parliamentarians and to raise awareness about federal issues that affect both their profession and the communities they serve.

Representatives from the White Rock and Surrey fire departments raised issues directly affecting their members, including increasing the memorial grant program and strengthening protections for communities against lithium battery fires. These courageous first responders put their lives on the line every day to protect our residents and respond to emergencies. They are also deeply committed to their communities, raising funds for local charities, supporting families in need and giving back through countless volunteer initiatives.

I thank our firefighters for their courage, their compassion and their unwavering service to our communities.

Finance

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with these Liberals, it is more spending, more debt, more inflation and more of the same. They tell Canadians that things are under control, but this Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficit, adding $90 billion in net new spending. Now debt interest costs Canadians $55 billion a year, more than we spend on health transfers.

The C.D. Howe Institute says, “Fiscal excess has...undermined economic growth and living standards.” Translation: Reckless Liberal spending is making Canadians poor.

Next week, this government tables its fiscal update. Will it doom Canadians to more of the same?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is Friday, but it seems that my colleague has the wrong QP card. Let me help him, because I think he might want to have some of the facts to send to his constituents.

Just last week, the International Monetary Fund said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position of the G7. That is great news that I hope he is going to bring to his constituents. More than that, Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7. This is extraordinary.

We are going to build this country strong with all Canadians.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, hot air and no results, more of the same is exactly what Canadians are getting: reckless spending that never stops, billions on consultants, billions on their failed gun grab, billions on high-speed rail and more waste, inflation and pressure on Canadians.

When the Prime Minister says that affordability has never been better, is that what he calls record prices and the worst food inflation in the G7?

Will the Prime Minister cut the waste and bring down his out-of-control spending or is he just another Liberal?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am just another Liberal fighting for Canadians every day, like all my colleagues.

It is astonishing. I know it is Friday and things are light because there is sunshine in Ottawa, but no results? Just look at what the International Monetary Fund said last week. It said that Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7.

I would like to look at his scorecard.

On this side of the House, we know what matters: fighting for Canadians every day, helping Canadians in need and building Canada strong together.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister claims that affordability is the best it has been in 10 years.

However, with $90 billion in new spending and $55 billion in annual interest payments, Canadians are paying more than ever for housing, food and transportation. Even the C.D. Howe Institute says we are living in a “fiscal fantasy”.

Next week, will the Liberal Prime Minister condemn Canadians to even more spending, more deficits and a rising cost of living for families?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. I know it is Friday, but I think he is asking the wrong question. The real question today is: How does Canada compare with the other G7 countries?

Last week, the IMF told us that Canada will have the second-fastest growth in the G7. These are facts. I know that my colleague knows deep down in his heart that this is the truth, and I am sure he will go and share the good news with all his constituents.

Canada is in a strong position. Together, we will build a strong Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not ask the finance minister to guess what is in my heart. What is in my heart is the worker I met last week who lost his job. What is in my heart is the family I see at the grocery store forced to choose what to put in their cart. What is in my heart is concern that Canadians are getting poorer, that Canada is changing and that this government is making things worse day after day.

Yes, it is Friday. Can this minister show a little compassion and think about the Canadian families he is going to burden with debt while creating even more costs for everyone?

That is what is in my heart.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we know that my colleague has a big heart. That is why we were a bit surprised that he voted against the OAS increase, the dental care program, the school food program and the Canada child benefit.

He voted against all that, despite his big heart. We have challenged the Conservatives to tell us what cuts they are proposing. Will my colleague table in the House of Commons a list of the cuts the Conservative Party is proposing?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have made grand promises of spending less and investing more, yet we heard from Finance Canada that their savings plan was not about spending less at all. With net new spending at $90 billion and interest on our nation's debt totalling more than we spend on health care transfers, Canadians are footing the bill in the amount of $3,300 a year per family.

What are the Liberals going to tell Canadians next week when they release their fiscal update? Will it doom Canadians to more of the same?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that my colleague, the Minister of Finance will bring in an exciting update that will tell Canadians about the major progress that we are making in building Canada strong.

Yesterday, I asked Conservatives to table a detailed list of spending cuts they propose, because they talk about inflationary spending. I hope my hon. colleague can help me. Is the Canada child benefit inflationary spending? Is the dental care plan inflationary spending? Is old age security inflationary spending? Are Canada student loans inflationary spending? Could the member tell us—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after running a decade of deficits, the Liberals have doubled the cost of housing, doubled the cost of rent and now doubled the deficit from Justin Trudeau. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians who are struggling to afford groceries, pay their rent and fill up their tanks with gas.

When will the Liberals finally admit they have gotten it wrong, change course and get their spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the question again, just as the government House leader did. The Conservatives talk a big game, but they do not want to get specific about what vital programs they would cut in order to pay for their irresponsible plans.

We have the Canada child benefit and the Canadian dental care plan. Just recently we brought forward the Canada groceries and essentials benefit that will deliver over $1,800 per lower-income family in that member's riding.

She would deny them child care, she would deny them dental and she would lower their Canada child benefit. Not on this side; we have got Canadians' backs.

Natural Resources

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are busy launching their new dirty oil pipeline project out west. Things may be buzzing in Ottawa, but it is crickets from developers. Nobody is interested. Who is going to pay, then? The answer is the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Yesterday, he confirmed in committee that he wants to give $10 billion of taxpayer money to indigenous communities so that they will agree to participate in the project. The Liberals are trying to buy social licence with $10 billion in cheques.

Will the Liberals back down and promise not to put Quebeckers' money into their pipeline?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers will also benefit from our plan to build a very strong Canada. There was the announcement for a new graphite mine. We saw the opening of the Contrecoeur shipyard, a megaproject that will create thousands of jobs in the Montreal region, continue to fuel our supply chains and lower costs for Canadians.

Quebeckers will be involved in re-energizing the Canadian economy, and we will continue to build a very strong Canada.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when a member responds by talking about something else, it means he is bothered by the question.

Quebeckers have already paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are already paying billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies, even though those companies are making exorbitant profits because of the war in Iran. There is no way that we are going to pay for another dirty oil pipeline.

Quebeckers want their money to be used to fight climate change, to counter Donald Trump's tariffs and to fund health care. Basically, they want it to be used for anything other than saving oil companies money.

When will the Liberals finally get the message?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he has forgotten everything that we have achieved. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons just talked about projects that will move Quebec forward. It is important to know that Quebec is one of the world's top mining countries, and Quebeckers are proud of that. Canada, together with Quebec, is one of the leading authorities in the mining industry, and now we have the Nouveau Monde Graphite project.

Better still, Quebec has built a battery ecosystem. We will be at the cutting edge of technology when it comes to building EVs together. Quebeckers and Canadians are very proud of that.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' descent into an ecological abyss continues. This morning, they approved the expansion of yet another gas project in western Canada. They announced Sunrise, an Enbridge pipeline designed to export shale gas produced through hydraulic fracturing.

Instead of developing clean energy and reducing dependence on dirty energy, like other countries are doing, Canada is using the war in Iran as an excuse to increase its reliance on gas. It is another giant step backward.

Is there a limit to how much packpedalling on climate action the Liberals will tolerate from their Prime Minister?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Canada will remain a leader in conventional energy and renewable energy. Canada will continue to build major projects that make us proud.

I have an update. My colleague, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement is currently in Quebec City announcing more big news for the people in the Quebec City region, namely the designation of the Port of Québec as a first port of arrival. We will continue to build and create jobs and opportunities for Quebeckers and for our entire great country.

Finance

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must cut back at home, while the Prime Minister has doubled Trudeau's deficit, spending $90 billion more. Debt interest charges alone are over $55 billion. That is more than federal transfers for health care to all provinces combined. The Prime Minister spends drunkenly on lavish food and flights while he travels the world, but families pay over $3,300 a year for his interest charges. The Liberals force Canadians to sacrifice essentials every day. Food bank usage is up because food costs have skyrocketed.

When will the Liberals get spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, Albertans know, of course, like all Canadians do, that we are in very uncertain times globally. The world is in a tumultuous place, but fortunately Canada enters this with the strongest debt situation in the G7. That is a fantastic place to be in when we are in difficult times. Now we are spending to make sure we are protecting Canadians from these dangerous headwinds.

I would ask my colleague this: What are the cuts she would propose that would allow us to meet her objective of reducing what is already the lowest net debt and one of the lowest deficits in the G7?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, Liberals love to spend other people's money and blame everyone and everything else for their own record.

The Bank of Canada confirms that high deficits drive high interest rates. Since 2015, the Liberals' crazy deficits have skyrocketed. That means higher mortgage payments, higher car payments and higher credit card bills. High Liberal spending drives high inflation, and Canadians pay the price. Every buck the PM spends comes from Canadians.

Will Liberals agree with Conservatives to cut consultants, foreign aid and health care for fake refugees; bring down costs at grocery stores and at pumps and for homes; and make Canada affordable for all?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague did not hear the Minister of Finance this morning highlight the fact that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the best debt position in the G7 and that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7.

The member asked for the government to be able to make tough choices. Our comprehensive expenditure review is going to save the taxpayers of this country $40 billion, but some of the spending we are doing is about supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. Is the member suggesting we should not spend $60 billion to support our men and women in uniform? Is that the position of the Conservative Party?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it takes a special kind of spending problem to make Justin Trudeau look fiscally responsible, yet the Prime Minister has done it. His budget 2025 added $90 billion in net new spending, and the government is now paying over $55 billion this year just to service our debt. Canadians are being told to tighten their belt, yet the Prime Minister cannot even find his.

Next week's fiscal update is the moment of truth. Will the Prime Minister finally get serious, rein in his out-of-control spending and stop pouring inflationary gasoline on families and seniors who are struggling to survive?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, these are very serious times in our country, in fact globally. Canadians understand that we are living through a precarious time and that we have to work extremely hard to ensure that we build our economy and invest in Canadians so they are supported through these difficult times.

Canadians deserve serious leadership, and that is precisely what the Prime Minister and the government are doing: We are investing in Canadians as a bridge to a better future tomorrow. That is the work we are doing, whether it is the work we are doing in diversifying our economy here in Canada and opening new countries as places to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

The Economy

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, serious leadership looks like understanding what Canadians are going through. The Prime Minister says affordability has never been better. If that is true, I would hate to see what he thinks expensive looks like. When was the last time he actually went into a grocery store and bought groceries for himself in Canada? I highly doubt it has been in this millennium. Let me remind him of reality. After a decade of Liberal spending, families are paying 42% more for groceries than they were in 2015. Everything costs more. Canadians are struggling to stay afloat.

If life is so affordable, why are more Canadians lining up at food banks than ever before?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are on message. The script does not change. They talk about being in touch. I remind my colleagues that it was their leader who stood in front of the home of a waitress and called it a shack.

What do they want to cut? The members on that side have never answered us. Would they cut the child benefit? Would they cut the food program in schools? Would they cut day care supports? They would cut all of it. They do not have a plan. They are not serious.

Ethics

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee issued its report to make Canada's conflict of interest laws stronger, and we know that Canada needs this because Canadians deserve accountability but have a Prime Minister who is guaranteed future bonus payments from Brookfield, the company he used to run.

The Prime Minister should sell his assets so Canadians know that his decisions are in the public interest, not in his own personal financial interest, which is currently the case. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to do the right thing to show Canadians he is serious about democracy and about accountability.

Will the Prime Minister sell his assets and adopt the committee's recommendations?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, all 343 of us must abide by some of the strictest ethics rules that exist in the world. The Prime Minister disposed of all his assets in a blind trust on the day of his election as Liberal Party leader, five days before he was sworn in as prime minister. He took this step on day one.

Let us contrast that with the member's leader, who has been in the House for 20 years and still does not have a security clearance. The member needs to stand in his place and answer this: When his leader will get a security—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Public Services and Procurement

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals handed 200 million tax dollars to a six-person company of Liberal insiders to lease a so-called spaceport consisting of a gravel parking lot and a small concrete slab, 200 million tax dollars to a company that does not even own the land but rather leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for a fraction of the price.

How do the Liberals justify handing 200 million tax dollars to Liberal insiders for a gravel pit?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, establishing Canadian sovereign space launch capabilities is going to drive billions of dollars in investments. It is going to create good-paying jobs, increase Canada's sovereignty, reduce our economy's reliance on the United States and support a commercial space launch and re-entry industry that could be worth up to $40 billion. This is what we are investing in, essential capabilities that protect Canada and create massive economic benefits for Canadians. How can the Conservatives be against that?

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

Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals could spend 200 million tax dollars to rent land already owned by taxpayers, but then again, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia serves on the advisory board to the company, and the lobbyist for the project is none other than a former staffer to the Liberal Minister of Justice.

Is this not just another case of Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers get ripped off?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are busy rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are proud to invest in space capabilities, including space launch infrastructure. It is important for us to assert our sovereignty and our security in space-based communications, particularly in the Arctic.

This is one in a continuing series of generational investments to ensure both Canada's security and our sovereignty.

Labour

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is not Montreal, yet the federal government treats it as if it were Montreal when applying temporary foreign worker program rules. As a result, because the unemployment rate is high in Montreal, we are not allowed to hire or retain workers in Saint-Jean, even though our unemployment rate is low. Everyone has spoken out against this policy: the city, members of the Quebec National Assembly, the chamber of commerce, businesses and so on. I myself have contacted three ministers, including the Quebec lieutenant.

Since Saint-Jean is not Montreal, will the government treat Saint-Jean separately instead of harming businesses?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make sure the member opposite knows that our temporary foreign worker program use is down 50% in 2025 and makes up less than 1% of our workforce.

In terms of ensuring that our EI program tackles the needs of all communities across the country, that is something that our government remains committed to, especially at a time when our EI program is so essential to Canadian workers right across the country.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government, in its laziness, assumes that all towns within the same census metropolitan area are the same, but I repeat: Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is not Montreal. People from Montreal will not travel two and a half hours by public transit, one way, to come here and work. Let us not forget that we are a strategic national hub for defence and that, at a time when the federal government is investing in defence, local businesses are not allowed to hire staff or retain their existing workforce.

Does the minister realize how absurd this is? Is she going to change the rules?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to engage with the Quebec government concerning temporary foreign workers. We know how much the regions of Quebec need workers. Nothing is sadder than an order going unfilled because of a shortage of workers.

We are keenly aware of the situation described by my Bloc Québécois colleague, and we continue to engage with the Government of Quebec on this matter.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Immigration had the gall to say that it is perfectly fine for Canadians to fund health care for scammers, rejected refugees claimants, because it is just “0.2% of the total health spending”. That is unbelievable.

Over the past decade, more than 130,000 failed asylum claimants received better health care than Canadian taxpayers footing the $275‑million bill. Why is this acceptable to the Liberal government?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to the interim federal health program, a program that has been in existence since the 1950s, a program that has been supported by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.

Yes, this program does provide health care for people seeking asylum. What have we seen since 2015? We have seen a mass displacement crisis across the world. Canada has seen a mass increase as a result of people seeking asylum in this country. The program's costs obviously have grown dramatically since then. What have we done? We have worked to bring down costs, putting in place a copayment system that is going into effect in May.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals should have to look in the eye the Canadians who cannot access health care, facing such long waits in hospitals that they are dying, and tell them that their place in the system they pay for is being bumped by a fake refugee taking advantage of them. As much as the minister enjoys manipulating what is said, the reality is that Canadians are getting worse health care than the scammers are.

Rejected refugees, rejected for whatever reason, should not be in Canada, and they certainly should not be getting better health care than Canadians. When will it end?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the use of the interim federal health program has declined by 43% quite recently. We will continue to see that, because we are seeing a dramatic decline in the number of people seeking asylum in this country. It is down by a third, in fact. Let us go one step further, though, and question the premise of the question. Refugees make up 1% of the country's population. Are Conservatives trying to tell us seriously now that refugees are to blame for challenges in the health care system?

The Conservatives demonize, they play right-wing politics and they embrace populism. It is no way forward. We will focus on Canadians.

Health

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government spent almost $300 million on a national prescribing software that filled less than 5% of all prescriptions. Now it has cancelled it entirely, yet 85% of the technology used is in the private hands of Telus Health. That is the definition of wasteful spending of tax dollars.

Will the health minister explain to Canadians how she wasted $300 million on PrescribeIT?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I both work on the health committee, and I respect her work on health issues and also on this topic.

As the member knows, PrescribeIT was developed and introduced under the previous government at a request of the provinces and territories. Unfortunately the uptake was not high enough, so our new government has decided to end the program.

At the same time, we have introduced a connected care bill, through the Senate, which would increase interoperability for digital tools and solutions. This would help improve health care and connectivity for patients in Canada.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if a private sector staff employee wasted $300 million, they would be fired, but the Liberals have fired no one for their PrescribeIT disaster. I questioned the CEO responsible. He would not say where things went wrong. He even refused to say how much taxpayers paid him.

Why is the minister hiding the truth on this $300-million boondoggle?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, PrescribeIT was introduced in the last Parliament, under the last government, at the request of provinces and territories. Unfortunately, the uptake was not high. There were a lot of lessons learned.

We continue to collaborate with the provinces and territories on a path forward. At the same time, we will support provinces and territories on their digital solutions with Bill S-5.

International Trade

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's ambassador to the U.S. says Canada is ready, willing and able to start the CUSMA review. The USTR says the U.S. is ready to talk, so what is the delay? This reminds me of a grade seven school dance. Everyone wants to dance, but no one will be the first to ask. There are 2.6 million Canadian jobs that rely on trade with the U.S., and tariffs are costing Canadians billions.

When will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and get moving on the U.S. trade deal that he promised Canadians?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Canada-U.S. trade relations are vitally important. They support millions of jobs on both sides of the border. They support our workers, our industries and our businesses. With our new advisory council, we will continue to take a team Canada approach to the CUSMA review.

Taxation

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the face of rising fuel prices, which are being driven by global instability, Canadians expect and deserve timely, meaningful and tangible relief. That is exactly what the good people of the Bay of Quinte experienced recently when they went to fill up at the gas station. Suspending the fuel excise tax until Labour Day is expected to reduce Canada's price at the pump by about 10¢ a litre.

In advance of next week's spring economic update, can the Minister of Finance let Canadians know how this and other measures are helping to put money back in the pockets of Canadians?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question from a great MP from the good people of Bay of Quinte. I know that at home they are celebrating this great member.

It is true. People are starting to see at the pump the result of our measure to suspend the federal fuel excise tax. It is not only the good people from the Bay of Quinte who are seeing this, but also people across the nation. I know the Conservatives will join us in saying that this is a measure to help with affordability.

The good news is that it is not the only one. We have already done that with grocery prices. We will always be there for Canadians.

International Trade

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has now been widely reported in the media that part of the Liberal strategy to get Trump's tariffs removed is to delay.

Yesterday at the foreign affairs committee, the Canadian ambassador to the United States said that they have detailed analysis on exactly how much this hurts Canadian businesses. They know the cost, so if the Brampton auto plant closes, that is no problem. It is part of the delay strategy. If steel mills close, that is no problem. It is part of the delay strategy. If tens of thousands of Canadians lose their jobs, that is no problem. It is part of the delay strategy.

At what point do they say enough is enough, that there have been enough job losses and enough pain, and stop this strategy of delay?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Canada already has the best deal among U.S. trading partners in the world, and we are working hard to maintain that deal. We continue to engage with our American and our Mexican counterparts to review CUSMA. At the same time, Canadians gave us a mandate to expand our non-U.S. trade with the world. That is what we are doing. The third prong of that is working together with the provinces, territories, industries and unions. Every Canadian is working together to prepare for this.

We are ready to build. This is what Canadians sent us to do. We are going to build Canada strong.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer from the Liberal government is $5 billion collected on Canadian automakers, which is putting Canadian auto workers out of work, and $4 billion of those tariffs are to be paid by Honda and Toyota. They will not continue to pay those tariffs. The government's answer is, “Don't worry. There's nothing to see here because we're going to sign a free trade deal with Ecuador”.

The Brampton auto plant that closed is in the Minister of International Trade's riding. The Liberals' strategy of delay led to that plant closing. When will they give up on this strategy of delay and get the tariffs off for Canadian workers?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our strategy is actually to double non-U.S. trade over the next 10 years and to continue working on the CUSMA review, as the minister is doing.

I will also say that, in the meantime, we are building trade relationships with Indonesia, China, India, Mexico and Brazil. We are looking forward to an FTA with the ASEAN in 2026 and working on Mercosur as well. That is what working for the Canadian public is all about. That is what building Canada strong means.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, tariffs on steel have doubled, tariffs on lumber have tripled and barriers on Canadian manufacturers have only expanded, yet he has not secured the removal of a single one of those tariffs. While he says those tariffs are part of the reason that Canada's economy is struggling, Mexico is getting close to a deal with the U.S. There are 2.6 million Canadians who depend on trade with the United States for their livelihoods.

Why is the Prime Minister dragging this out instead of fighting for tariff-free trade, and when will he deliver the results that he promised Canadian workers?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the CUSMA review, we need to focus on trade diversification. Our efforts are working. They are leading to real results.

Last year, there was a 17% increase in non-U.S. exports. Fact number two is that we also had 170 million metric tons from the port of Vancouver, which is a historic record. That is more shipments to China, Japan and South Korea. Just in from the port of St. John's, cargo is up by 30% at that port alone.

Our efforts to open up new partnerships around the world are working. That includes Indonesia, Ecuador, UAE with the European Union, and of course others such as India, ASEAN, Mercosur, Philippines, Thailand, UAE and Saudi Arabia. We are at the door. We are creating opportunities for Canadian workers.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard this over and over again, but alas, Canadians cannot survive, and their jobs will not survive, on Liberal rhetoric alone. Tariffs are higher, and they are broader. They are hurting Canadian workers, yet the government has not gotten any of them removed.

On behalf of the 2.6 million Canadians whose livelihoods depend on trade with the United States, where is the plan? Where are the results?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians sent us to Ottawa to get the best deal, not to settle for a bad deal. We are working at our pace to make sure we get the best deal for Canadians. We are consulting with Canadians. We are consulting with industries. We are using every legal, diplomatic and economic tool, and we are working with provinces, territories and Canadians to make sure we get the best deal possible.

We are not going to negotiate in public, but we are working together.

[Kathy Borrelli, Conservative, Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new section 232 tariffs are gutting our tool, mould and die companies in Windsor-Essex and across the country. These shops are vital to our manufacturing industry. Hundreds of thousands of skilled workers will lose their jobs.

Where is the Liberal Prime Minister's plan? Workers need results now in order to survive. When will the Prime Minister finally do his job, get to the table and put our workers first for a change?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I entirely reject the premise of that question. We are there for the workers right now. My colleague, the deputy government House leader, is in Windsor today marking the reduction of the excise tax, which will help workers and all residential households in Windsor.

In addition, the third shift has come to Stellantis in Windsor. The millionth battery cell has just been manufactured at the NextStar plant. We are working hard to develop the economy of Windsor with Windsorites, while also helping them with the diversification that they and we know we need to do in this changing era.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 278 days since the Prime Minister's own drop-dead deadline for a trade deal with the United States. In that time, 2.7 million Canadian jobs that depend on cross-border trade have been threatened by tariffs and uncertainty. While Mexico is at the negotiating table, the Prime Minister is on YouTube calling Canada-U.S. trade a weakness instead of fighting for our businesses and workers.

There has been enough talking. We just want the date. When will Canada have the trade deal with the U.S. that the Liberals promised?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we already have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and we are going through the review process. We understand the challenge to Canadian workers and to Canadian industry. As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister have made very clear, we are at the table. We are having conversations with the U.S. administration. We are engaging.

The Conservatives have made very clear, and the Prime Minister has made very clear, that we are not going to settle for a bad deal. In the interim, we are supporting industries and supporting workers who are being impacted by the tariffs, which we feel are unjustified.

We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. I will take Canadians back to 2018 when they would have had us fold before we got the best deal for Canadians.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, by the time I finish asking this question, Canada will have done more trade with the United States than the value of this Prime Minister's trade agreements with Ecuador, India and the UAE combined.

The reality is that our trade relationship with the United States, what the Prime Minister calls a weakness, represents over $900 billion in annual trade and 2.7 million jobs, but he refuses to fight for these workers under our economy. Will the Prime Minister admit that the only real weakness is his own?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we, along with this country as a whole, are continuing to diversify non-U.S. trade. That means real results. There have been more than 12 agreements over the past six months across four continents, which is a result that I ask my hon. colleague to acknowledge.

Furthermore, as we work to double non-U.S. trade, we will build Canada strong internally. We will bring down internal barriers to trade. We will build national projects.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tariffs on softwood lumber have tripled to 45%. Now hundreds of workers in Nairn Centre and Gogama are facing indefinite sawmill shutdowns, leaving families in real uncertainty.

Workers in my riding whose jobs rely on free trade with the U.S. need real action now. When will the Liberals fight against these tariffs and fight for tariff-free trade?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we will always stand with mill towns. The combined duties and tariffs are scheduled to go down to 35%, based on the updates that came out the last couple of weeks, so there is a small correction there, but all still too painful and all still unjustified with the United States.

That is why we are working to both control the issues we can control and engage with the Americans on this issue. We have given $2.5 billion of supports to the forestry sector. We are going to be taking receipt of the forestry transformation task force's report imminently, and it has many great ideas. We will be there for workers, and I welcome the member to join us and work with us on that.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the premise that he was the man. Well, it seems that the man with the plan has disappeared.

The Liberal government has been on the sidelines for far too long, failing to secure a single reduction on tariffs, while North Ontarians continue to lose both patience and jobs. Communities are being pushed to a breaking point, yet there is still no progress and no real results from the Liberal government.

When will the Prime Minister finally get his act in gear and deliver the fair trade deal he promised a year ago?

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues across the way have heard countless times, we will continue to make sure we get the best deal, not just any deal.

Let us talk about the last year. Wages have grown faster than inflation every month that the Prime Minister has been Prime Minister. FDI, foreign direct investment, is the highest in 18 years, double that of the next nation in the G7. We have record oil production, and non-U.S. trade is way up. Last year we created more jobs than the United States did.

Trade wars are brutal, but we are going to win this trade war. We want the member's help doing it.

Foreign Affairs

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been a proud and active member of the international francophone community.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs inform the House of the government's efforts and priorities in advancing Canada's bid to host the Sommet de la Francophonie and explain how this initiative will strengthen our cultural ties, our economic partnerships and our leadership within the global francophone community?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in France last month, I submitted Canada's bid to host the Sommet de la Francophonie in our country. This summit will help strengthen economic ties in our francophone and acadian communities.

I also met with the secretary general of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie to reaffirm Canada's commitment to economic and cultural partnership. The French language remains a central part of Canada's identity.

International Trade

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister waving the white flag on U.S. tariffs?

He sits by and does nothing while U.S. tariffs on steel have doubled, and they have tripled on lumber. He has failed in negotiating the reduction of a single tariff. Sawmills and the B.C. towns that they support are reeling from his failure to negotiate a deal. Speeches, illusions, excuses and failures are not going to cut it for the millions of families' livelihoods that are at stake.

When will the Prime Minister start delivering results instead of excuses?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his team, the ambassador and the ministers involved, we are prepared and ready and stand willing to negotiate in good faith a deal with the United States. It will not be any deal; it will be a deal acceptable for Canada.

Contrast that with the Conservative position, with the member's colleague going to Washington and saying that Canadians are having a hissy fit and their getting up every day and systematically urging us to take any deal. We will not do that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's illusions tactic and excuses are no help to Canadians. Instead of getting a trade deal last July, as he promised, he squandered his leverage with concessions made 10 months ago. He does not even show up to do his job, while Mexico makes progress ahead of him.

Why did the Liberal Prime Minister make the strategic error of dragging this out instead of using the leverage we had at the beginning of the talks to get tariffs removed on Canadian goods?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the vital importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship, especially as it relates to trade. I have seen it first-hand in the private sector. I spent 13 years facilitating international trade, utilizing NAFTA and CUSMA in thousands of transactions.

We will continue to be at the table. We need to ensure that we take a team Canada approach. That is exactly what we are doing. We do not want to go back to 2018, when the Conservatives asked us to capitulate and take any deal.

Indigenous Affairs

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say that they defend private property rights, yet in the Cowichan case they chose not to argue extinguishment, which is how fee simple ownership has been historically defended. They weaken protections and then claim to defend them.

Will the Liberals withdraw their directive and instruct their lawyers to defend private property rights to protect Canadians, yes or no?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We disagree with the B.C. Supreme Court's ruling. That is why we appealed it back in September.

As a government, we always prefer to negotiate instead of going to court. I can tell members that in all of our negotiations, dating back to 1970, no agreement between the federal government and first nations has ever led to Canadians losing their privately owned land, not a single one. All discussions of aboriginal title at the federal level exclude private property. No modern treaty, negotiated agreement or federal approach has led to people losing privately owned land.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. As this critical piece of legislation continues its parliamentary journey, it is important to remind Canadians how overdue a lawful access regime is in our country. This has been requested by law enforcement agencies for decades.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety expand on how crucial this legislation is for the safety and security of all Canadians?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the excellent work she does to ensure that the government is aware of the public safety issues in her riding.

It was a true pleasure to see my colleagues from all parties at the parliamentary reception of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police where we had a chance to discuss Bill C‑22. It is high time that we equipped our law enforcement agencies with the modern tools they need to effectively fight serious crime, including extortion, child sexual exploitation and money laundering. Law enforcement officials clearly informed us that what they needed—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

The Environment

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are over 12 illegal garbage dumps in the Cowichan Valley, many on Cowichan tribes' land. Some are so large they will take years to remediate. Others are polluting the salmon-bearing Cowichan River. For decades, authorities at all levels have turned a blind eye to this environmental disaster and ongoing illegal dumping.

I wrote a letter to the Minister of Indigenous Services weeks ago demanding that the Liberals identify authorities at all levels, hold them responsible for this travesty and take action immediately. There was no response from the minister, no action and no cleanup.

The Liberals claim to be stewards of our land. Is this just another Liberal illusion?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for looking out for my relatives from the Cowichan tribes. I know they are probably very furious about what is happening. We will work with them and work with others to ensure that no illegal dumping occurs on their property. We will make sure that it stops as soon as possible.

Steel and Aluminum Industry

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, steelworkers were in Ottawa this week reminding the government that steel is the backbone of our economy and our economic sovereignty. The Prime Minister has said that Canada will use Canadian materials in Canadian projects, but Canada does not yet have that capacity.

Will the government take advantage of this incredible opportunity to build Canadian capacity, to grow our industry and to invest in workers? Will the government work with the United Steelworkers to develop and implement the comprehensive steel industrial strategy they are calling for?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that steel is a fundamental strength of the Canadian sector. Our buy Canadian policies are all geared toward using as much Canadian steel as possible. We look forward to working with the United Steelworkers and other industrial unions, as well as employers and businesses, to maximize the use of Canadian steel in Canada.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not listening to steelworkers. The government left USW off its CUSMA advisory council. It also shut out the Canadian Labour Congress and the over three million Canadian workers it represents. Instead, the government gave seats to more than a dozen CEOs, prominent Conservatives and just two labour representatives.

How can the government claim to be there for workers while refusing to give them seats at the table? Will the government expand worker representation before CUSMA negotiations begin, starting with the CLC?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's advisory council includes the president of Unifor. It includes the president of FTQ. Workers' interests will absolutely be represented on the advisory council.

I was proud, just a couple of weeks ago, to visit Sault Ste. Marie, with my incredible colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, to visit Algoma Steel and to meet with the steelworkers to talk about the exciting future of building Canada strong, buying Canadian and seeing that electric arc furnace fired up.

We are going to have a steel industry in Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That brings question period to an end.

I have a point of order from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to table a document detailing the cuts Conservatives would make.

[An hon. member]

No.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 9, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order. I want to remind members who are walking around that Standing Order 16(2) applies. Members cannot come between the Speaker and the member who will be recognized.

Foreign Affairs

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Treaty Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and on Cooperation in the Enforcement of Penal Sentences”, done at Manila on May 22, 2003.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 24 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Canadians calling on the government to cease the expansion of medical assistance in dying.

The petitioners believe that advance requests for MAID could lead to undue pressure or coercion. They also believe that offering MAID rather than providing support services devalues those living with chronic conditions. As such, they ask all members of Parliament not to support legislation that expands medical assistance in dying, including advance requests, and suggest that the federal government focus on enhancing palliative and hospice care for Canadians instead.

Agriculture

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present this petition on behalf of farmers across this country who have signed this petition.

They cite that, in January, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced plans to cut 665 positions, primarily scientific, technical and support staff carrying out agricultural research, and close seven research facilities. They cite that the affected positions and facilities are essential to Canadian agriculture, representing an irreplaceable investment in facilities, equipment and highly educated personnel; an irreplaceable knowledge base; essential infrastructure for public plant breeding needed to address critical production challenges to provide ongoing success for farmers and our agricultural economy; and a strategic asset to safeguard Canadians' ability to feed ourselves.

They call on the government to reverse these planned cuts of 665 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada staff and the closure of the organic and regenerative research program at Swift Current and of the Lacombe, Guelph, Quebec City, Indian Head, Scott, Portage la Prairie and Nappan research facilities.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. One is identical to the petition that was just presented by the hon. member. In fact, he basically read the entire text of it, so I will not repeat it.

I have two copies of it signed by a considerable number of people, mostly from the agricultural sector in my constituency.

Rail Transportation

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to the Alto high-speed rail project. I am being flooded by literally thousands of signatures on petitions on this subject.

The petitioners list a series of concerns about the Alto project and have three specific requests for the House of Commons: first, to get the government to immediately cancel the entire Alto high-speed rail project; second, in the event that the Ottawa-Montreal part of the project goes forward, to restrict the ability of Alto to engage in expropriations in the area west of Ottawa, which is not covered in that area, until such time as we can be certain that this part is actually going to be built; third, in the event that expropriations do occur, to restore to property owners the rights they had prior to the changing of those rules, the diminution of their rights in the Alto high-speed rail act.

Religious Freedom

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present another petition from residents of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. I believe this is my sixth petition on this issue.

The petition calls on the Government of Canada to reject any amendment to Bill C-9 that removes the religious exemption from Canada's hate speech provisions, to protect Canada's constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression and to ensure that legislation does not criminalize good-faith religious discourse and teaching.

Herbicides

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting virtually today a petition from very concerned residents and people who have been exposed through their military service to toxic contamination from phenoxy herbicides. This dates back to an era even before Agent Orange was used in Vietnam. Various formulations were tested in the vicinity of Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick.

The petitioners point out that the previous health studies were inadequate and had enormous gaps. They are asking the House and the government to please initiate a public, independent inquiry into the health impacts, on veterans and on neighbouring communities, of the testing of phenoxy herbicides and their widespread use in the vicinity of Camp Gagetown, including the subsequent toxic contamination, as well as the health effects for people who were in the vicinity.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the government's response to Questions Nos. 931, 932, 933, 934, 935, 936, 937, 938 and 939 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

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.

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my dear friend, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her question.

I would simply say that my view of this piece of legislation is that it is intended to deal with imminent threats and challenges facing Canada's electoral system. I do not feel at this time that the suggestion by my hon. colleague with regard to the way in which parties are financed would fall under the scope of this piece of legislation but, perhaps, under a future piece of legislation. In this particular case, I do not feel that it is relevant at this time.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues previously, in delivering a speech on this topic, brought up the idea of the previous removal of the costing regarding the entrance fee, so to speak, to become a candidate. I am very curious whether the member would be willing to incorporate that into the legislation.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take my hon. colleague's comments on notice and take them to committee.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-25, which amends the Canada Elections Act.

We think the intention of the bill is good. We agree in principle and we will vote in favour of the bill at second reading. However, there are some nuances I need to talk about.

Of course we agree with the bans regarding foreign influence, election disinformation, election corruption, and those so-called “rewards”, or bribes, the infamous “brownies”. These things urgently need to be regulated. We also agree when it comes to addressing the problems with nomination contests and leadership races.

When it comes to political party financing, parties are also prohibited from accepting and using certain donations, namely those from anonymous sources. That is important, and we need to keep that up. Questions were raised about that earlier in the discussions on previous speeches. The bill as it now stands raises doubts in that regard. Political parties have a duty to protect the personal information of their donors and members. As for enforcement and sanctions, the bill gives more power to the federal Commissioner of Canada Elections and increases the administrative monetary penalties.

Finally, the bill also seeks to change the names of some ridings at the request of members, a move that, in our case, was approved by the communities covered by this bill.

As I said, we support the principle of this bill. We applaud the goal of protecting electoral integrity and combatting interference and corruption. We do, however, disagree with one of the measures in the bill, which we expressed in committee. We do not understand why this has not already been amended. We therefore want to work on this some more and propose amendments related to the measure preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. It is a very slippery slope when the government starts limiting citizens' ability to endorse candidates with a signature. Signing a nomination paper does not mean that individual will vote for that candidate. However, if people are limited to signing only one, it will almost become—

Mr. Speaker, people are having conversations right next to me. Perhaps those folks could go into the lobby to do that. I do not think they are listening to my speech, anyway.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Some members are having discussions in the House, and the sound does carry, surprisingly, to the front benches quite easily and is interfering with the business of the House. I invite those members to go to the lobbies if they want to continue those discussions.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé may continue his speech.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a mild case of attention deficit. Nearby noises bother me.

I will pick up where I left off. I was outlining the serious doubts that we raised over the prospect of preventing constituents from signing more than one nomination paper. This is an important issue. Signing a nomination paper does not oblige constituents to vote for the candidate in question. They are free to watch the election campaign unfold and possibly change their mind along the way. Otherwise, what purpose would election campaigns serve? If we tell constituents that they cannot sign more than one nomination paper, it amounts to telling them that they have to make their choice at the start of the campaign, which would make election campaigns rather pointless. People would be unable to sign a nomination paper for the person they want to vote for because someone else got to them first. The problem with that is obvious.

The other problem is that the vote will be made public. Most people are comfortable with that. I think most people here could guess who I voted for in the last election and in every election of my life. However, some people do not want to reveal who they voted for, and that is fine, because it is all voters' prerogative to keep their vote secret. If a person can sign only one nomination paper, they might as well announce publicly which candidate they will be voting for. We understand how complex this issue is. I myself have gladly signed the nomination papers of certain opponents, because it is important to have an election campaign with diverse candidates and to foster democratic debate. We believe this provision should be removed from the bill. We believe the other measures will be enough to control the very high number of candidates seen in the last election.

I just said that I have signed ballots for certain political opponents, but I will never sign ballots for 48 candidates who are simply there to bog down the electoral system. There are different ways to express disagreement. Fundamentally, I agree with the cause these people are defending. However, I think they are taking the wrong approach. They are disrupting the entire electoral system. Through their actions, they are discouraging citizens from exercising their right to vote.

In large federal ridings, a list can sometimes include as many as 72 candidates, and voters often have to search through them. Take Berthier—Maskinongé, for example, with its 108,000 voters and 37 municipalities. As qualified and important as I believe myself to be, I am well aware that many people in my riding vote primarily for the party. They need to be able to find that choice on the ballot. We therefore agree that this needs to be addressed.

Compromises were found during the recent by-elections, particularly in Terrebonne, where candidates affiliated with recognized parties were placed on the first page. However, requiring voters to write down the name of the candidate increases the degree of difficulty, the duration of the vote, the risk of error and the risk of a challenge. There was no recount this time because there was a clear majority, but in the event of a judicial recount, it is easy to imagine how that could be challenged by lawyers for the other party that is seeking to overturn a vote, particularly if a candidate has a hyphenated last name and the voter only wrote part of the name. This can cause major problems and delays that must be avoided. That said, we agree with most of the measures proposed in the bill.

I hope the government will reconsider preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper, but there is something else we take issue with: Why not take this opportunity to review the issue of political party financing? I will again use Quebec as an example. I know I am always going on about this, but this is another fine example of how Quebec is ahead of Canada. Quebec reformed its electoral law several years ago. Public funding is allocated based on the number of votes obtained, and donors are limited to a donation of $100 per year and $200 in an election year. That limits influence. Let us not forget that, under the previous prime minister's government, Chinese-Canadian businessmen planning to open a bank in Canada attended receptions to gain access to the Prime Minister and donated over $1,700. That is a lot of money. There are not many ordinary citizens who can afford to donate $1,700 to a political party. It is time we sorted this out. These amounts and this way of doing things open the door to the possibility of electoral manipulation. It is never a good thing when money buys access to ministers, so we need to democratize the system.

Public funding of political parties could also prevent some parties from engaging in populism. The parliamentary secretary seems to be listening carefully to my remarks and I am pleased about that. I am sure that he will appreciate what I am saying about some of the more populist parties that post the same slogans or videos repeating the same lines on their social media to try to raise a lot of money. We could perhaps mitigate that by allocating a portion of public funding to the parties. That is something we could work on. Of course, I hope the government will work collaboratively and that the talk we are hearing will be followed by more practical measures than the ones in yesterday's motion.

I mentioned this briefly earlier, but it is also important that we have access to the names and addresses of people who make donations to political parties. Part of the bill raises doubts in that regard, and we have serious concerns about that. Of course, if we allow anonymous donations, it would only further encourage fraud, manipulation and corruption. We want to avoid that.

We also want to avoid foreign interference and the use of AI to send messages. We saw how a lot of messages were sent out to voters to direct them to the wrong polling stations. That is very serious and I hope that significant penalties will be imposed.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know a number of Bloc members have raised the whole voting dollar issue and how that could possibly help finance political entities. I do not believe there is any public will for that to take place, but I would encourage the member to bring it up at the standing committee.

I would like some clarification. The member talked a lot about the long ballot, and I do not know if it is me or possibly the translation, but I am a little confused. In the legislation, it says that a voter can only sign one nomination form. Then it also indicates that an official agent can only be the official agent for one candidate in that given riding. Does the Bloc support those two measures?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we will be there in committee to present our proposals, including on political party financing. That is essential.

To answer my colleague's second question, we support half of these measures. We believe that prohibiting an official agent from representing more than one candidate will solve most of the problem. However, we are very concerned, and we do not agree with preventing people from signing more than one nomination paper. This raises issues concerning the secrecy of the vote, among other things.

I do not know if the parliamentary secretary heard me say this earlier, but the fact that I can sign as many nomination papers as I want has in the past allowed me to sign the nomination papers of my own political opponents. I did so in good faith for the sake of a healthy political debate and campaign. However, if a voter can sign only one nomination paper, that means the individual signing the paper will be voting for that candidate. Even if that is not the case, it will prevent people from signing the nomination paper of the candidate for whom they intend to vote, and that makes the vote partially public. This raises issues that need to be addressed.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to understand my colleague's position on signing multiple nomination papers, because we saw that this was a major problem in some ridings. People are using the election to send a political message. That never used to happen because a $1,000 deposit was required, which was just as problematic for some people who could not afford to pay that amount to run for office.

I know we will have the opportunity to discuss this in committee, but we absolutely must find a way to put an end to this election protest. How can this be solved?

I missed part of my colleague's speech, but what solutions does he propose to prevent us from ending up with ballots that are too long or ballots on which people have to write a candidate's name, when we know that a certain percentage of people—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must give the member for Berthier—Maskinongé time to answer the question.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that my colleague asks me a question that I appreciate, so it has been a good week. The issue has a lot to do with ballot secrecy. I had started to explain it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. Ballot secrecy is a privilege of citizenship. As long as citizens can sign as many nomination papers as they want, signing does not mean they are voting for that person. However, if we get to the point where citizens can only sign one nomination paper, the message would be that they are going to vote for that person. It also implies that there is some sort of commitment and that citizens cannot change their mind during an election campaign.

However, an election campaign is precisely when people change their minds. We are usually pretty good at changing people's minds, so we would not want that to change. We think that the other measures, such as having one official agent per candidate, could do the job. We agree on the basic objective.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us a little more about the importance of reinstating public funding for political parties and limiting the scope for donations. Why is that important for democracy and for the fight against corruption and conflicts of interest?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, getting a portion of public funding is essential. I was told earlier that there was some uncertainty as to whether there was an agreement on this. I can confirm that there is public funding, because when someone donates $1,700, they receive a substantial tax refund. Public money is going into this.

What we are suggesting is simply changing the formula, the way it is done, to prevent anyone from donating as much as $1,700. We believe that only influential people can do this, so that poses a problem. The amount needs to be lowered.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This is a complex, technical piece of legislation, but its core objective is one we should all support: protecting the integrity of our democratic process.

Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River for his thoughtful remarks on this bill and for the very good work he does on democratic reform.

While the Conservative caucus supports moving this bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a detailed study, there are specific areas regarding foreign interference and new enforcement powers that I believe require further scrutiny.

The bill focuses on three central themes. The first is bringing in changes to prevent further abuses of our democratic processes by the longest ballot committee. I know we have heard a lot about this issue during this debate. Over the course of many years now, members of the House, prospective candidates and Canadians have been subjected to a coordinated effort by a group that calls itself the longest ballot committee, whose members have sought to exploit our electoral process. They target specific ridings and flood the ballot with dozens of fake candidates, candidates who have no intention of campaigning, engaging with voters or putting forward solutions and policy proposals to run on.

This undermines the trust Canadians have in our election systems. The expectation of residents in the riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek from Humboldt, Warman and Martensville to Radisson, just to name a few, is that as a candidate I run under a set of policies that I am committing to represent, and I put forward a vision of what I plan to achieve in Ottawa and how I plan to represent the voices of my riding here in this place.

The longest ballot committee is the exact opposite of this. To call it a protest is to misrepresent the way it undermines trust in our elections. A recent and prominent example was in the riding of Carleton, where we saw a metre-long ballot with 91 fake candidates. This creates voter confusion, marginalizes legitimate candidates and creates unnecessary barriers for voters with certain disabilities.

As of now, groups can use the same 100 signatures to qualify multiple candidates. This is a clear abuse of the spirit of the act.

Bill C-25 rightly proposes that an elector may only sign one nomination form and that an official agent may only act for one candidate per riding. This would help put an end to this sham of the electoral process by the longest ballot group.

The second part of this bill proposes changes to close foreign funding loopholes. Central to our democracy is the idea and trust that Canadian elections should be and are decided by Canadians. Currently, significant loopholes allow foreign interests to influence our outcomes through third parties. If foreign money is sent for a general purpose rather than a specific regulated activity, it can be treated as general revenue and used for campaigning. This allows third parties to potentially be significantly funded by foreign money in practice. That process is the melding of funds.

These new rules that would prohibit cryptocurrency, prepaid cards and money orders as contribution methods would extend to leadership contests as well. These changes to prevent anonymous and hard-to-trace funding channels are welcome.

As has been noted, with the instance of the 2017 Tides Foundation case, where foreign funds were funnelled through Canadian intermediaries to mask their original source, those entities ended up campaigning against then prime minister Stephen Harper in the 2015 election. That is an intermediary loophole that exists, where foreign funding is dispersed to legitimate Canadian companies and then transferred to third party groups and the funds do not appear to be from foreign entities.

This bill would require third parties to use separate bank accounts funded only by Canadians or permanent residents. However, there would be a 10% “own funds” exception that may still leave the door open for foreign influence. That is why Conservatives are urging the government to consider an amendment requiring all third parties, regardless of size, to use separate Canadian-only accounts to ensure a level playing field with political parties.

The third part of the bill I will be focusing on is the proposed changes in powers to the commissioner of Elections Canada and new monetary penalties. It is these proposed changes that may require greater scrutiny, which would be done in the House through each stage of debate, and then during the review process at committee.

The bill is proposing to increase monetary penalties for individuals from $1,500 to $25,000, and for corporations from $5,000 to $100,000. These are not small increases. Further investigation will be needed, given that the commissioner would have extraordinary powers to apply these fines, to see if it would be more appropriate to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions and to proceed by way of criminal prosecution.

Some of the proposed penalties are for spreading election misinformation. Conservatives will do our part to ensure that the legislation reflects the intent and that it would not penalize or have a chilling effect on having debate and conversations about elections.

There are also greater powers being proposed for the commissioner of Elections Canada, in that they would no longer need judicial authorization to compel evidence in all circumstances. We will need to ensure that this is charter compliant.

These are examples of where Conservatives believe the bill requires further scrutiny, and I do hope this demonstrates that we are willing to come to the table and find solutions to the problems facing our electoral system.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled its report, and while some of its recommendations are being put forward in Bill C-25, some are not. The report was unanimous. Conservatives hope the government will be amenable to reconsidering the amendments that reflect the unanimous recommendations made by the committee.

Election interference is real, and it is important that we work to close the loopholes and combat foreign influence in our elections. We are all familiar with what happened in 2019 in the riding of Don Valley North, where the Liberal nomination became an entryway for foreign interference in our elections process. A Beijing consulate coordinated support for a candidate who would go on to win the nomination and become a member of the House. Instances like the one in Don Valley North are a warning to every member of the House that foreign interference in our elections must be fought at every stage, including nominations.

I know that there is much to consider in the bill, and in the short time I have had, I have not covered everything. Bill C-25 is a technical bill, as I mentioned earlier, and it includes numerous measures that are meant to close loopholes in the current legislation.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the report and for the fact that it was unanimously agreed to. Conservatives broadly support the measures contained in the bill that would safeguard democracy and ensure the integrity of our elections, and we will closely review individual measures at committee.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, you have obviously done a great deal of review on the bill. I will give the member an opportunity to elaborate. You talked about penalty increases and some concern with the size of the increases. The size of the increase, I believe, is to prevent bad intention or bad actors. If candidates, official agents or others are acting in good faith, they have no fear of an increase in the size of the penalty.

I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate on your thoughts.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I remind members to speak through the Chair. I will not be elaborating, but I will invite the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek to do so.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the explanation that my hon. colleague has provided, and I would agree with that explanation. I do believe that the proposed increases are significant, and I think they demonstrate the seriousness with which both the committee and the drafters of the legislation take the monetary penalties that would be applied in cases where these fines are appropriate. I will leave it to the committee to determine whether this is something that needs further scrutiny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from my hon. colleague concerning the main point, that being our proposal to reinstate public funding for political parties.

What we currently see are very high caps on financial contributions to political parties. Obviously, not everyone can afford to contribute so much. Our point is that this opens the door to the appearance of a conflict of interest or privileged access to ministers, for example, when tickets to a cocktail party cost $1,500. Reinstating public funding for political parties would allow us to cap potential political contributions at, let us say, $500. In this way, contributions would not be limited to the fortunate few. It would also make funding a lot more grassroots and more representative of the number of votes cast for each party.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with my hon. colleague on the efficacy of that suggestion. It is important that political parties are subsidized not simply by a few votes they receive but by the voluntary contributions of Canadians who believe in what a political party represents and hopes to achieve.

I know that, provincially, individuals can donate much more to candidates, and so can corporations and businesses. I believe that the threshold that has been set federally is appropriate and encourages people to stay engaged in politics and support the candidates they would like to have elected to the House.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary democracy is a loose framework and is only as good as the actors in it. If the actors use good ethics, then it works well. For example, when 93% of the electorate votes for the party customarily rather than for the candidate and when a floor crossing happens in a case like that, we can see intent of parliamentary democracy.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on whether she considers the long ballot to be similarly detrimental to democracy.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs produced a report on the longest ballot issue, and that it was unanimously supported by all parties. What I believe has been noted is that there are loopholes in the current legislation that allow for activities like those of the longest ballot committee to continue, just as it is legal for individuals to cross the floor in the House of Commons. So far this committee has been able to do what it is doing, but we are seeking to end that.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. Our Elections Act is among the most important laws we have as a nation, as it sets out the rules and procedures for our democracy to function. All members of the House believe in democracy, of course. It is how we all ended up here. However, any time measures are brought forward that would change our laws, this could change how we vote and whom we can vote for, and the proposed measures must be considered with a microscope. Any proposed changes to how an election would operate must be considered with strict consideration to make sure the rules of the games would not be stacked in the favour of the party in power.

We only need to look around the globe to see nations where democratic decline has started because free and fair elections have been watered down by legislative majorities. Canada and many of our allies have avoided this, but the decline of democracy can come swiftly. What once started in a forum in ancient Greece largely disappeared for more than a millennium. Democracy is not a natural occurrence. It must always be reasserted, and changes made to it must be agreed to among the largest possible number of parties and citizens.

Given that the House now has a Liberal majority government constructed behind closed doors instead of at the ballot box, extra consideration is needed. The proposed changes that are before us could now be passed by one party alone, changing how our elections would be conducted. I know that the minister said in a minority government that he wanted to have consensus support for legislation amending the Canada Elections Act, and he expressed an openness to entertaining supporting other parties' amendments. I hope he keeps his word on this and trusts that members on this side of the House are working in good faith to possibly make further changes.

For the most part, I think the bill contains many welcome proposed changes, though many are long overdue. Other areas will require careful study by my colleagues in committee.

For the people watching at home, I will explain that the legislation would make the following changes. First, the bill contains measures to counter foreign interference in our elections, as well as in nomination and leadership contests. Foreign entities would be banned from contributing to third parties at all. Foreign funding would be barred from leadership contests. Also closed would be contributions made anonymously, and funding channels such as money orders or cryptocurrency would be traced. After years of delays by the Liberal government, I am pleased that this would finally be addressed.

Additionally, the bill would create several new offences and extend existing offences under the act to leadership and nomination contests. The bill would give significant new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections to undertake investigations and to enforce the act, among other measures.

Last, the bill includes welcome measures to counter the disruptive and anti-democratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee. Under the act as it stands, a candidate must obtain 100 signatures from electors in a riding in order to get their name on the ballot.

The longest ballot committee, however, identified that the same pool of 100 voters could sign the nomination forms of hundreds of protest candidates who were seeking to get their name on the ballot, even if few or any of them were from the riding. This is clearly an 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.

This point is of great importance because it does touch upon the issue of protests. Protests are in the blood of any democratic system. No country can call itself free if it does not allow for protests. I appreciate that the members of the longest ballot committee wish to make their case for changes to our election system. Canada has a long legal tradition that does not prescribe how these protests should be done. What one person may think is serious, another may feel is frivolous. The law does not discriminate, however.

Protest candidates also have a long tradition in Canada and other democracies. British Columbians still remember the Marijuana Party of Canada. Others will remember the Rhinoceros Party of Canada, which campaigned on jokes. John Turmel is probably the most famous candidate, having run in 112 elections between 1979 and 2024, never once elected and yet never forgotten. In some ways, his persistence is a symbol of our democracy itself.

However, it is not a universal right to subject other Canadians to protests. We are allowed a million ways, for example, to protest at an airport. We are even allowed to run for election to protest an airport. What we are not allowed to do is to stand on the runway and block the plane.

The longest ballot committee chose to exploit a loophole in the Elections Act to fill ballots with hundreds of candidates, none of whom had any connection to the riding where an election was being held. This strikes against the principle of local representation. As a result of its actions, the metre-long ballots that were printed for voters were enormously burdensome. Other ridings chose to make ballots write-in only, which limited voters' ability to consider their candidate in the voting booth.

If the longest ballot committee wishes to protest our voting system, that is fine. It is not fine to disrupt the ballots for citizens in ridings across the country with long lists of people who do not live there and do not intend to represent them. It also strikes against some of this country's strongest democracy supporters, such as the volunteers who take time every election to assist in the election process with Elections Canada. Forcing them to count enormously long ballots deep into the night is wrong. They give their time freely, with no reward, to ensure our elections are conducted fairly. They are heroes of democracy whom I know every MP in the House respects enormously. We literally cannot have elections without them.

The changes that would be made here to limit the longest ballot committee are simple and fair and will leave a wide amount of space for protest candidates to continue. The amendments brought forward would require that electors sign only one candidate nomination form, as well as that an official agent act for only one candidate per riding. This is good for candidates, voters, election volunteers and even protesters.

As I said previously, I look forward to seeing the bill go forward to committee for further study and possible amendments from all parties. I ask that my Liberal colleagues do not look to pass this legislation unilaterally and operate with an open mind to good ideas.

Lastly, given this is on the subject of elections, it has been almost a year since I was elected myself as the member of Parliament for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. On this one-year anniversary, I would like to thank all the residents, whether they voted for me or for others, for granting me the honour of my life, to serve them in our nation's Parliament.

Over the past year, I have come to know the distinct character of this vast region, from the vineyards and beaches of the Okanagan to the mountains and valleys of the Similkameen, the forests and rivers of Boundary Country and the alpine landscapes of West Kootenay. Each community is unique, with its own needs and challenges, and I will work hard to ensure those voices are heard here in Ottawa.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that the member put on the record. Ultimately, there is a high sense of collaboration on this legislation. PROC will have a wonderful time going through it, sharing ideas and thoughts. If there are ways the legislation can be approved, hopefully through collaboration, then we will get to see that done.

Given the member's background, and I really enjoyed her comments, I wonder if she could provide her thoughts on virtual voting, which is a little off topic but related. It is something that I think some people are thinking about. I am not a big fan of it, personally, but I would like to see more discussion on the issue of virtual voting, the pros and the cons.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague and the rest of the cohort here are going to be working on this collaboratively. It is very important. Canadians are watching right now.

On virtual voting, we would need to make sure that it is fail-safe and that Canadians feel it could not be tampered with. Are we at that point, where they would feel secure with virtual voting? I do not think we are at that point, but I am sure someday soon we will be.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I would like her opinion. The Bloc Québécois is proposing to reinstate public funding for political parties and to cap donations at $500. With public funding, the government contributes an amount based on the number of votes received by each party. Some people will say that the government should not be subsidizing the parties, yet it is happening already through tax-deductible donations.

If we keep the limit at $1,775 and a lot of employees from one company make donations, it could create the appearance of conflicts of interest or corruption.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are a lot of issues we need to talk about in committee concerning elections and making sure they are safe, and donations.

There are ridings like mine that are massive. I am given a certain amount to service my communities and the residents, and also for the election, and in donations, but I will say that smaller ridings have it a lot easier. We have to remember that there are many ridings in Canada where the amount we are allowed to spend is pretty difficult when we look at how big some of them are. I think we should discuss this at committee.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite if there is anything else she feels that perhaps we should be including in this bill to strengthen it and if she would like to elaborate on anything she feels we should also include.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think quite a bit needs to be discussed at the committee level, and I look forward to our party collaborating with all parties on this.

I think there should be a discussion, and not everyone agrees with me on this, of course, on whether someone needs to be a citizen to vote in the nomination process. I think it is a really interesting and important issue that should be discussed, and voted on also, because obviously, it does affect elections.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing here today because the people of Alberta expect me to stand up when something is wrong. They expect us to fix it. As members of this House, we are guardians of the Canada Elections Act. This law is one of the foundations of our democracy. It is the contract that ensures power stays where it belongs, in the hands of the Canadian people. Our duty is to ensure that when a citizen marks their ballot, the process is fair, the choice is clear, and the results are beyond reproach.

Over the last decade, confidence in Canadian elections has decayed. The very foundations are beginning to crack. Bill C-25 is supposed to patch this up. When a foundation starts to crack, we do not ignore it or paper over it. We shore it up before the whole structure crumbles. The bill would start that work, but it is late, and it does not go far enough.

In my maiden speech, I said that the Bow River does not ask Ottawa's permission to flow. Even though obstructions are in the way, it cuts its path. Just across from my riding, my neighbours in Battle River—Crowfoot walked into a by-election and saw what happens when those foundations are neglected. They saw a ballot so broken it barely worked. The longest ballot committee flooded that by-election with 214 candidates.

It forced Elections Canada to abandon the normal ballot process, and people had to handwrite their vote on a blank line. They were forced to manually write out names and risk a spoiled ballot just to exercise their basic right. Let us think about that. A senior who has voted for 50 years walks in, ready to do their duty, and suddenly they are asked to reconstruct the ballot from memory. If someone spells a name wrong, their vote could be tossed. If someone writes too fast or writes a name slightly off, their vote could be tossed.

The government was warned by the Chief Electoral Officer that these ballots were becoming a barrier for voters with disabilities. This had been done before. It knew the longest ballot scam was threatening our democratic process, and it did nothing. It took something that should have been simple and made it fragile.

I have to say, I am most concerned about my Liberal colleagues, because we all saw what happened in the House. One of the Liberals stood up with complete confidence and berated this side of the House about the supposed hockey skills of Irish kickboxer Conor McGregor. We knew he was talking about Alberta's hockey superstar Connor McDavid, but close only counts in horseshoes.

We are human, and we all are susceptible to error. That is why we have to have rigid, reliable systems. It can be stressful standing up in the House, especially when the elbows-up PMO has the Liberal caucus on a strict hockey analogy quota. Let us imagine the same moment in a voting booth: Two Connors are in someone's head. They know who they mean to vote for, and they just hope they get it exactly right. That is the system the government forced on people.

The longest ballot committee exposed a weakness, not in our underlying system but in the administration of it. It cost this country millions of dollars. It delayed results. Most importantly, it shook confidence. Ultimately, it creates a cascading effect of doubt. If a voter in Bow River sees a circus across the fence in Battle River, they start to wonder if their vote is next or if the whole system is broken. When people see the process break down, they start to wonder what else is not holding. Everyone saw it coming. The warnings were there, and the government did nothing.

There is a deeper crack that we need to look at: foreign interference. While people were dealing with a system that was already under strain, foreign actors were pushing on it from the outside. We saw what happened to Kenny Chiu. There were smear campaigns, coordinated messaging and falsehoods designed to turn his own community against him. That pressure does not stay contained. It spreads, and it weakens the trust in the entire structure.

My family came to this country, escaping from communist Europe, to build a country where we could speak freely and participate in public life without fear. That belief rests on a democratic system that people can trust. When foreign governments start interfering in who gets elected, they are attacking that trust directly. It does not start on election day either, but far earlier.

In the nomination races, we have seen reports of buses of non-residents showing up to tip the scales. That is pressure being applied at the very base of the system. If one can shape who gets on the ballot, one can shape everything that follows. This legislation does nothing to stop it. Non-citizens should have no say in our elections, no say in who gets to be on the ballot, and certainly no say in who gets to stand in this House.

There is also the question of privacy, which is another part of the structure that should be solid. Back home, Rocky's Bakery in Strathmore sells some of the best hot cross buns one can ever find. When a customer swipes their credit card, a litany of laws kick in to protect that consumer data. Rocky's Bakery follows the rules. It answers to the law. However, political parties in this country think they are above the law. They collect vast amounts of data on Canadians and operate outside of any oversight. There are gaps in the system like this. These sorts of gaps will not stay small; they will widen.

Here is the reality. My neighbours are watching election after election turn into a circus. They have heard of and have seen foreign governments trying to influence outcomes. They know their data is being handled under a different set of rules and they are asking a simple question: Is the system as solid as we were told it is? Can they trust the system?

This is what needs to happen. We need real oversight of political party data by the Privacy Commissioner. We need serious penalties for anyone working with foreign actors to interfere in our elections. We need a foreign agent registry. We need to crack down on those who are interfering directly in our elections or from the shadows. We need clear rules to prevent these ballot stunts from ever happening again. We need to protect nomination races, because that is where the foundation is first laid.

I think the best place for this bill to go is to committee. I am really encouraged by the notion that we collaborate to get this right. I hope the government listens to constructive criticism and to how we can build a system that is reliable and can stand the test of centuries. Specifically, it needs to go to committee because I do not think it is complete. I think more work needs to be done, most importantly, because my neighbours deserve a system that holds. The country deserves a system that holds, one where every citizen can walk in, mark a ballot and know where it stands, where no foreign government can lean on it. That is what we are here to protect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the previous Conservative speaker, it is the government's intent to work collaboratively on this legislation. The member said it well when he said that the foundation of our democracy is something that we should virtually never, ever take for granted.

I was interested in his comments in regard to the long ballot. I thought he articulated them quite well.

Does he see any changes required to what is currently in the legislation where we are proposing that a voter can only sign one nomination form for a candidate to be on the ballot, and that one can be an official agent outside of that one constituency, but one can only be an official agent for one candidate in that constituency?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague across the way. I think he touches on an important part. I had, in my words earlier, alluded to some solutions. I think it is close. I think that sort of notion of “once”, but limited perhaps outside of the constituency, because there is a limited pool of people with experience who know how to run things well. Because of the financial aspect of campaigns, it is important we maintain security around that too.

I think it is best studied at committee. It seems reasonable to have other perspectives from witnesses and experts to comment on that, to anticipate the unanticipated. That is where this belongs.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bill would result in the government no longer being required to disclose the names and addresses of political donors. I asked one of my Liberal colleagues about this earlier. He replied that he did not think the bill would have that effect. If that were the case, it would really open the door to conflicts of interest, corruption and so on.

If it turns out that the bill really does make it so that the government is no longer required to disclose the names and addresses of donors, would my colleague agree that that is wrong? Would he oppose that?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why it needs to be studied at committee. The sharing of data and the unintended consequences of that, and the impacts of privacy of the individual have to be fully vetted out and compared. It deserves sunlight, the discussion of open debate and thorough study.

Our democracy is not necessarily supposed to work fast, but it is supposed to be thorough so it can be effective and stand the test of time.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important subject. One thing the member touched on, and I just wanted to ask his opinion on this further, is that we are considering changes so that during an election a financial agent could only work for one party at a time. I want to know what he thought about that.

It is getting tougher to find financial agents because of the red tape and the complications. It is a really big job to volunteer for. Does the member agree that during an election a financial agent should only work for one party?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is important, and it may be one of the most important aspects of this legislation. We need to look at how the finances are treated and get it right. The power rests with the people and is enabled by the money. The adage is to always follow the money.

We need to have people knowledgeable about how to audit, conduct, measure, tabulate and ledger the expenses, and to do it with honour, discipline and honesty. However, if we have them spread out too much, then it introduces a lot of problems.

The bill needs to go to committee.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to address very briefly two topics and then dwell at greater length on a third. Like many of my colleagues here, I am generally supportive of this legislation. I do think it is good that it will go to committee where it will, one hopes, be open for genuine good-faith amendments to improve it. Since we agree on the substance of the bill, it should be easy for us to find improvements that make sense to all of us. I am very hopeful that will happen.

There are three areas that deserve being noted because they are particularly valuable. One is the banning of anonymous contributions through cryptocurrency, which I think removes a loophole on the idea we have had established in Canadian electoral legislation for some time, that we ought to be able to identify all contributors and that all contributions are public contributions. It is also a way of getting around potentially maximum contribution levels for individuals. Dealing with that is useful. The removal of some forms of foreign interference is also beneficial. Then, of course, there is the issue of ballot integrity, which is dealing with the problems introduced by the activities of the longest ballot committee. I want to spend a bit of time talking about that.

I had the chance to see this up close in the last federal election, about this time last year, when I spent a considerable amount of time campaigning in the riding of Carleton, where the leader of my party was running. It is the riding that joins my own riding. It was clear that there was a need to get in there and do what we could to help the leader. Ultimately, the efforts that other individuals and I made were insufficient, although we did cause him to experience the highest Conservative vote he had ever had in his entire career, but that was insufficient to win the riding.

At the same time that was going on, there was an effort by the longest ballot committee to put many people onto the ballot, ostensibly, in the service of their goal of trying to draw attention to the abandonment, way back in 2017 ,of Justin Trudeau's stated goal of changing the electoral system. We will recall that in 2015, then candidate Trudeau said this would be the last election under first past the post. There was then a series of hearings of a parliamentary committee for this purpose. I served on that committee, and so did my colleague who is nodding. She still looks somewhat exhausted from the experience. We came up with a proposal that, ultimately, he decided was not very satisfactory, so Trudeau stepped away from it. The longest ballot committee felt this would be a way of drawing attention to their concerns with his abandonment and his approach. I think that may be how it started, but as time went on, it went from being a form of political protest to being a kind of performance art. There is nothing wrong, I suppose, with engaging in performance art if it creates no harm, but I think in this case it did create harm.

I will, first of all, show how over a period of time, over six different elections, this transformation occurred. In the year 2021, in the riding of St. Boniface—St. Vital, the longest ballot committee put forward 15 candidates. Of those 15 candidates, the maximum number of votes garnered for one candidate was 58 votes. The minimum number received by a longest ballot committee candidate was seven votes.

In 2022, there was a by-election in Mississauga—Lakeshore. This time, there were 33 candidates from the longest ballot committee, more than double. The maximum number of votes received by any of them was 48.

The third by-election took place in Winnipeg South Centre. It resulted in 42 candidates that time, so it is going up, as we will notice. There was a maximum number of 36 votes for any of those candidates and there was a candidate who received only one vote.

The fourth time this happened, when the longest ballot committee weighed in, was in a by-election in 2024 in Toronto—St. Paul's. This time, there were 77 longest ballot committee candidates. For the first time, we saw a candidate who received zero votes, strongly suggesting that the candidate was not a resident of the riding and was not even able to vote for himself or herself.

The fifth time this came up was in a by-election in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun in September 2024, with 77 longest ballot candidates again. By the way, I got all this information from Wikipedia. In each of these, as I looked it up, it said that it was a new record-breaking result. It seems that whoever wrote those articles was starting to cover it as a kind of sporting event. There were 77 candidates for the committee. The maximum number of votes achieved was 34, so we notice a gradual downward trend here. Two candidates got zero votes.

The next one was in Carleton last year, with 85 candidates, a significant number of whom received zero votes.

Finally, last August, in Battle River—Crowfoot, we saw something in the neighbourhood of 200 candidates for the longest ballot committee. The point is that 77 of those candidates got zero votes, and a significant number got one vote each.

That was the performance chart. Now, what are the consequences of doing this? In Battle River—Crowfoot, there were two independent candidates, both of whom complained that they had a hard time being taken seriously and drawing independent attention to local issues, which is often what independent candidates are trying to do, because they were being conflated with the people on the longest ballot committee. In fact, the second-place candidate in that by-election was an independent candidate, Bonnie Critchley, and she largely got attention for the issues she was concerned about by criticizing the longest ballot committee and asking, “How can we express our concerns when these guys are hogging all the bandwidth and distracting?” As I said, she came in second. In all fairness, she got only 9.8% of the vote, but that was more than twice what the Liberal candidate got. She was a serious candidate. These other people were not serious candidates. I think that's a legitimate harm they are doing. Perhaps it is not a harm that is a cause to ban them.

However, I will point out as well that my step-mother lives in the riding of Carleton. She is quite elderly now and cannot get out to vote, so I looked into getting a ballot for her to participate from home. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to get a mail-in ballot that would be usable by someone in her situation.

Likewise, someone who is visually impaired is normally enabled to vote and to participate fully, with a confidential, secret ballot, when there is a normal-length ballot, in the following manner: People are given a ballot and then a template with a series of holes. They can feel which hole is in which spot, while the names of the candidates are read out to them in order, typically in alphabetical order. They identify that they will vote for candidate number three, who is the candidate of their party. They go behind the screen, count down to the third spot and mark their X. It gets put into the ballot box with everybody else's ballot. The result is that they have a secret ballot. Once this is done, that is taken away from them. Taking away the right of a citizen to participate fully and properly in an election is, in my view, a contravention of section 3 of the charter, which guarantees every Canadian the right to vote in a federal election. I am sure that was not the intention, but that is the practical result.

The practical proposal being adopted in this legislation is one that eliminates the ability to engage in this kind of frivolous balloting. It is not that independent candidates cannot get on the ballot, real independent candidates like Bonnie Critchley. It is a way of ensuring that candidates who have taken what started off as a legitimate protest and turned it into a form of performance art cannot engage in that performance art at the expense of the constitutional rights of Canadians who have disabilities, who are prohibited by their actions from participating in a full, proper and rights-respecting manner.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I did, in fact, work with my colleague on the electoral reform committee. I enjoyed working with him on that.

I would like to get his opinion on whether we should also be looking at the following, in terms of eliminating the longest ballot. I know that every candidate who wants to present in a federal election has to fill out a nomination paper as a candidate with Elections Canada and make solemn declarations on that form. Could the member provide an opinion on whether one of those declarations should be something along the lines of “I fully intend to represent the citizens in this riding”? The reason why they are using the same auditor is that they are not actually incurring or submitting any expenses, as they have no intention to run. Perhaps a solemn declaration with the actual intent of running is something we could add.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I think the measures that have been proposed would actually serve the same purpose, basically eliminating non-serious independent candidates.

I do want to say, though, that we have to be a bit careful about what we put in there. I will just throw this out as a thought. In 2011, the New Democrats won a significant number of seats in Quebec, where the candidates were not resident in the riding and had not visited the riding. It appears that the people who voted for them we actually aware of that fact. This was their way of expressing support for Jack Layton and his vision. After some of them got elected, they went to heroic efforts, in some cases, to move to the area. We all remember Ruth Ellen Brosseau, who went to her riding. She did not speak French very well. She learned to speak it better. She moved. She raised her son there. The result was that she was re-elected.

I do not ever want to preclude the possibility of that happening again.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the proposed measures in the bill stipulates that voters may not sign nomination papers for more than one candidate. In other words, they may sign only one paper.

However, this could have an unintended consequence, because, up until now, signing a candidate's nomination paper has not necessarily been seen as an endorsement of the candidate, but rather as support for their right to run for office. If we limit this to a single person, it will effectively become an endorsement of the candidate.

On the one hand, this raises concerns about ballot secrecy. Voting would no longer be secret. On the other hand, it will somewhat limit emerging parties. Do we really need this measure? We do not think so, and we believe the other measures will be sufficient to address the high number of nomination papers.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to me this is not really a problem. I once signed a nomination paper for a candidate who was running against me. It was the Green Party candidate in my riding. I did vote for myself though.

I heard that, in 2011, NDP candidates in Quebec stopped people in the street to sign their nomination papers. That tells me that people are prepared to sign these papers to express their support for the process, not the candidate.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have something in common. My riding is next to Battle River—Crowfoot. One of the things that I learned in August was the expense related to the longest ballot and the extra staff that were required.

I wonder if you could comment or know anything more about how difficult it is to make that ballot and the expense that it added. We keep hearing about how these by-elections cost so much money. Can you comment?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I cannot comment, but I will let the member for Lanark—Frontenac comment.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you could actually comment very intelligently. It is just that the rules preclude the Speaker from doing so.

I think the answer is that it is a real problem, but it is not a problem that would justify this action. I think the stripping away of constitutional rights from other Canadian citizens is the important matter that needs to be addressed here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The question is on the motion.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I had to get my headset back on. I know I am late to say that I would like to give a speech on Bill C-25.

If it is not too late, before debate collapses—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member is indeed too late. I had already called the question. I did call, twice, “Resuming debate” and I heard no answers. I also called it in French and I heard no response. It is too late now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I am sorry, it is because I had surgery on Tuesday.

I am very disappointed not to be able—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the member and simply refer to the fact that I called “Resuming debate” twice. I then did it once in French as well, and I called the question. I am going to invoke Standing Order 10, which says that there is no debating once a ruling has been made.

I am just going to restart from the beginning so the House understands what it is voting on.

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be passed on division, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Jury Duty Appreciation Week Act

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

moved that Bill S-226, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep respect that I rise today to speak to Bill S-226, the jury duty appreciation week act. The bill was introduced by Senator Lucie Moncion in the Senate. It seeks to designate the second week of May every year as a dedication to jurors and jury duty. It is thanks to Senator Moncion's tireless efforts that I stand here today in the chamber speaking to this bill. She has dedicated decades of her life to raising awareness of these crucial aspects of our criminal justice system.

Having been a juror in 1989, Senator Moncion has bravely shared her harrowing journey in the service of justice. Her summons to serve as a juror, as juror number one no less, was for a case of a first-degree murder charge. The experience had consequences on her personally and on her family, and it left her feeling isolated. However, through outreach, Senator Moncion ascertained that she was not alone in feeling the distress of serving on a jury, and that other jurors had similar impacts on their lives for one reason or another.

Over years of commitment to support past jurors and prepare future ones with the tools necessary to sustain them, Senator Moncion has collaborated with various organizations and stakeholders, and through lengthy studies, testimonies by witnesses and by experts—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. There seems to be a cellphone that is too close to the microphone and is making a lot of noise. I would ask the member to move it, because it is causing an issue for the interpreters.

This gives me an opportunity to deliver a very important reminder.

If there are members who are debating or talking to each other in the chamber who would like to take that discussion outside of the House into the lobby, there is ample space there at this time for them to have a private discussion. They are disrupting the chamber's business.

I invite the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle to continue.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the experience had consequences for Senator Moncion personally and her family, and it left her feeling isolated. However, through outreach, Senator Moncion ascertained that she was not alone in feeling the distress of serving on a jury and that other jurors had similar impacts on their lives for one reason or another.

Over years of commitment to support past jurors and prepare future ones with the tools necessary to sustain them, Senator Lucie Moncion has collaborated with various organizations and stakeholders. Through lengthy studies with witness and expert testimonies at committee, she brought this well-thought-out bill to fruition. It raises awareness of the sacrifices jurors have to make in serving the Canadian justice system and highlights the nature of the challenges they face, which include but are not limited to financial, social and mental health aspects.

We see every single year that thousands of Canadians across all of Canada are called upon to serve on a jury. What we do not often see is the aftermath of serving on that jury. Vicarious trauma, lack of workplace support and barriers to jury diversity are just some of the issues they must eventually face once the hearing is terminated and everyone has gone home.

Often, employers do not comprehend that jury duty is obligatory. They believe that their employee can get out of it and often compel them to do so to the point of harassment. They do not understand and often do not care that, unless there is justification, their employee cannot back out of jury duty. Often, employees are threatened with termination of employment and falsely accused of shirking their duties.

Employers need to be aware that jury duty is a fundamental part of our justice system and that, once a summons has been served on a potential juror, their employee is legally obligated to serve on a jury. Of course, an employer does not have to pay them, which means that a juror loses income and is unable to contribute to their financial situation at home.

During deliberations, jurors are sometimes sequestered for days and even weeks, depending on the substance of the trial. They are obliged to stay away from their family and friends, their loved ones, their children and their elderly parents. They are isolated at a hotel, as this is seen as a way to ensure that there is freedom from outside influence on the verdict and that the trial is based on evidence and the verdict is rendered as such.

Mandatory sequestration begins once a judge instructs the jury to go into deliberations. At that time, jurors cannot watch television, access the Internet or have contact with the outside world. They are heavily supervised by court personnel, and this sequestration, although rare, can also take place earlier, during the trial stage, if the judge sees that the high-profile nature of a case could affect the verdict.

We do not often dwell on what it is like for a juror to hear difficult testimonies and be exposed to evidence that can be so filled with raw violence, which speaks to the inhumanity and cruelty a fellow citizen can be capable of. Oftentimes for jurors, facing such a situation, PTSD can be the result of their service.

Jurors sometimes suffer from PTSD following a trial. I had the opportunity to speak with Mark Farrant, the founder and CEO of the Canadian Juries Commission, a national non-profit organization that supports and represents Canadians who serve as jurors. After serving as a juror in Ontario during a murder trial, Mr. Farrant found himself grappling with emotions he could not manage, without knowing where to turn. He explained that he was repeatedly exposed to gruesome details and the sight of burn scars on the victim. The accused was later found guilty of starting the fire that killed his partner. This experience caused Mr. Farrant significant distress, both during and long after the trial. He tried to take refuge in his work and keep himself busy, in the hope that the situation would eventually right itself.

At the time, it was not widely known that indirect witnesses of trauma could experience PTSD. Even today, people are not always aware of that. PTSD can manifest itself through all sorts of symptoms, such as intrusive thoughts related to the trauma, avoidance of traumatic memories, negative mood swings and sudden outbursts similar to those experienced by soldiers, survivors of accidents or abuse, and first responders.

Mr. Farrant started to do research. He talked to veterans and even first responders, and he eventually realized that he himself could have PTSD, even though he had only seen evidence in court and had not been present when the incidents occurred.

Thanks to dedicated people like Mr. Farrant, we now understand that jurors can also suffer from PTSD. British Columbia is leading the way by providing mental health support to jurors and former jurors.

Even though the administration of justice falls under the purview of the provinces, the federal government also acknowledges the essential role of jurors in the Canadian justice system and the need for federal support in recognizing the necessity for mental health services and financial support of jurors.

As was wisely stated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Find, “Trial by jury is a cornerstone of Canadian law. It offers the citizen the right to be tried by an impartial panel of peers and imposes on those peers the task of judging fairly and impartially.”

The 1984 Ontario decision in R. v. Bryant provides an overview of the history and significance of the right to a jury trial in Canada.

The right of trial by jury existed in the four original provinces of Canada before Confederation. It was received as part of the common law of England by the colonies of Nova Scotia in 1758 and New Brunswick in 1784. Its history in Quebec and Ontario is more complicated and demonstrates the importance attached to the jury from the earliest times in these provinces, around 1763.

Since justice is a shared jurisdiction, it is crucial for all levels of government to fulfill their responsibilities concerning jury duty. Bill S-226 would provide the proper means to do so while respecting the administration of justice by provinces and territories.

In a 2017 House of Commons justice committee study on improving support for jurors in Canada, gaps in juror supports were highlighted. At the forefront was mental health. Witnesses who appeared spoke of various trauma and the PTSD they had suffered, especially when it came to criminal cases and especially those that involved violence.

This week of appreciation is necessary not only to raise awareness but also to recognize and celebrate those who have served on a jury. Often, vicarious trauma among jurors has been neglected. Concerns about insufficient mental health supports provided before, during and even after jury duty necessitates the awareness that Bill S-226 brings to Parliament. The development of comprehensive trauma-informed programs to support and safeguard the well-being of jurors during this time is absolutely essential.

Another notable element of jury duty is the significant lack of diversity among jurors in Canada. It has also been recognized by experts, particularly in regard to the representation of racialized, Black and indigenous individuals. Measures aimed at improving the diversity of jurors must be examined to answer to this gap and provide a true representation of peers during trials.

Financial barriers, such as lost wages and not being adequately compensated for travel, child care, meals, parking expenses and so forth, cause an undue burden on Canadians called to serve. This financial impediment can lead to juries that may not be reflective of our diverse communities or of Canadians as a whole.

Unfortunately, in several provinces, the compensation paid to jurors has remained unchanged for decades, supplying further evidence of the unfair burden placed on them.

For example, there was a time when jurors were paid just $40 a day, following an initial period during which they were not paid at all. Given all of these factors, serious consideration must be given to the obstacles that have been identified, including low pay, job insecurity, lack of employer support and limited access to mental health services.

These important points that I have briefly outlined paint a revealing picture of why, at the least, recognizing and supporting jurors is imperative. They are the ones who uphold this cornerstone of our justice system and our democracy. Jurors make personal sacrifices, yet their service is often neglected. They are all deserving of our acknowledgement and our gratitude.

That is why our government supports the jury duty appreciation week act. I hope we can count on all colleagues in this chamber to support this incredible bill and to uphold our justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, at first blush, someone might dismiss this bill as merely symbolic, but I could not more strongly disagree with such a sentiment, because there are very real knowledge gaps amongst Canadians with respect to the important role that juries play in the administration of justice, as well as the significant and unique challenges faced by jurors and former jurors.

Can the member speak to the issue of the knowledge gap and how dedicating a week of appreciation will help close it?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the bottom of my heart for his very thoughtful question. He is one of the solution makers.

We want to show Canadians, or express to them, what jurors go through. I am sure a lot of my colleagues, those sitting here or who are listening on their televisions or computers, will have heard certain things that they were not aware of, such as the financial burden, the lack of mental health support and the undue burdens that a juror must face, including being sequestered for weeks without contact, without loved ones and without having access to the outside world. This is very difficult on a human being. People cannot get out of jury duty, unless there is a justification that would allow them to do so.

This kind of bill would raise awareness of what jurors go through, the sacrifices they make and the supports we can give them as a government.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, but only insofar as it is a gesture of recognition that does not involve any programs, administrative structures or spending, because the administration of justice is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Does my colleague agree with that?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I could not agree with him more. The administration of justice falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. It is important for us today to also symbolically show what people are doing to advance the justice system. It is important for us to recognize those two things. It will allow us to better support people serving on a jury, so that they can continue to contribute to the administration of justice, while respecting jurisdictions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased and very impressed with my colleague once again. I think of how important this issue is. It is a very critical aspect of our justice system.

I know it is a very special day today. Not only is the member bringing forward a fantastic bill, but it is also her birthday, so I wish her a happy birthday and compliment her on this special day. I wish I could sing it in French, as it is such a beautiful song in French.

I will pose my question. Why, from an emotional perspective and a financial perspective, do our jurors sacrifice so much in order to serve a critical role in our judicial state? Could the member provide further comment on that?

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my beloved colleague for his kind words and for being a source of inspiration to all of us. I really appreciate him from the bottom of my heart. I thank all members for their good wishes.

I practised law and going to criminal court was part of the practice I had. In criminal court, we see the stress jury members themselves are under. They walk in and it is a tense, sombre atmosphere. They sometimes have no idea why they are there; they are just summoned. Once they are summoned, they cannot refuse.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today, in response to my question on the $300 million the government spent on PrescribeIT, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health stated, “our new government has decided to end the program.” However, just three days ago, Canada Health Infoway's CEO was asked directly in—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I am going to interrupt the the member. It sounds like that is a point of debate, so it is not germane.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good residents of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations for placing their trust in me to be their voice.

This particular speech has some special significance to me. As a former justice participant, I probably participated in close to 50 jury trials. I personally know the importance, the sacrifices and all the consequences that flow from serving on a jury. It could be a couple of days, it could be several weeks or it could be several months, depending on the circumstances.

I could not be prouder as a representative of the House of Commons, given my background, to support this particular bill. The bill itself may appear modest in scope, but carries profound meaning for our justice system, our democracy and the everyday Canadians who uphold both. At its core, Bill S-226 would designate the second week of May each year as jury duty appreciation week across Canada.

Some may ask why such a recognition matters. Why designate a week for something that has long existed as a civic obligation? The answer, is simple: Jury service is not just a duty, it is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society and, like many cornerstones, it is often overlooked until we pause to reflect on its importance.

Every year, thousands of Canadians are called upon to serve as jurors. They come from all walks of life; they are teachers, tradespeople, parents, students and retirees. They are not legal experts. They are not politicians. They are citizens, ordinary individuals, entrusted with an extraordinary responsibility to weigh evidence, to assess credibility and ultimately determine the fate of another human being within our criminal justice system. That responsibility is immense.

Jurors are often asked to listen, sometimes for weeks or months, to testimony that can be disturbing, emotional and deeply challenging. They set aside personal biases, they follow strict legal instructions and they deliberate with fairness and integrity. In doing so, they safeguard one of the most fundamental principles of our legal system: the right to trial by a jury of one's peers.

Without jurors, our justice system simply cannot function as intended. This bill recognizes that reality. Its preamble clearly states that jury duty is a vital component of our justice system and our democracy. That is not symbolic language. It is a statement of fact. Yet, despite this critical role, jurors often serve in relative anonymity. They are rarely publicly acknowledged. Their contributions are seldom celebrated. Too often, the challenges they face, particularly those related to mental health and financial strain, are not completely addressed.

We must be honest about the burdens of jury service. Serving on a jury can mean time away from work, lost income and disruptions to family life. In some cases, jurors are exposed to traumatic evidence, graphic details, distressing images and heartbreaking testimony. These experiences do not simply disappear when a trial ends. For many jurors, the psychological impact lingers.

The bill speaks directly to that issue. It highlights the well-being and mental health of jurors who are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system. A justice system that relies on jurors must also support them. Recognition is not a substitute for reform, but it is a necessary step. By establishing jury duty appreciation week, we would create an opportunity to raise awareness about the realities of jury service, to encourage conversation about juror supports and to remind Canadians that this civic duty deserves respect and attention.

Some may argue that a commemorative week is merely symbolic, and that it does not change policy, funding or programs. While it is true that the bill would not create new financial supports or legal mechanisms, it is, at its heart, an act of recognition.

Symbolism matters in a democracy. We designate days and weeks not because they solve problems overnight, but because they focus our collective attention. They educate. They inspire dialogue. They affirm shared values. Let us think of the many observations we already recognize. These observations shape public consciousness. They remind us of who we are and what we value as a nation. Jury duty appreciation week would do the same. It would shine a light on a civic responsibility that is often misunderstood or undervalued. It would encourage Canadians to see jury service not as an inconvenience, but as a meaningful contribution to justice. It would signal to those who have served that their efforts are seen, respected and appreciated.

There is also an educational dimension to the bill. The preamble notes that designating a week of appreciation would help educate citizens, organizations and governments about the issues involved in fulfilling this duty. Many Canadians have a limited understanding of how juries work, what juries experience and why their role is so essential. The week could serve as a catalyst for public education through schools, community organizations and media, helping to demystify the process and strengthen public confidence in our justice system. Confidence matters. A justice system is only as strong as the trust people place in it. When Canadians understand and respect the role of jurors, they are more likely to view the system as fair, transparent and legitimate.

We must also consider the broader democratic principle at stake. Jury service is one of the most direct ways citizens participate in governance. It is democracy in action. It is a reminder that justice is not imposed from above, but delivered by the people. In an era where trust in our institutions is fragile, reinforcing this connection between citizens and the justice system is more important than ever. The bill does exactly that. It affirms that jurors are not peripheral actors. They are central to the administration of justice. It acknowledges that their service is not only necessary but honourable, and it invites all Canadians to reflect on the value of this civic duty.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of those who brought the bill forward. Originally introduced in the Senate and now before the House, the bill reflects years of advocacy and a growing recognition that jurors deserve greater acknowledgement. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is a national issue, one that touches every province, every territory and every Canadian who may one day be called to serve.

As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to uphold the institutions that underpin our democracy. Those include our courts, our laws and the citizens who bring them to life. Passing this bill would be a small but meaningful step in that direction. It would send a clear message that Canada values its jurors, that we recognize their sacrifices and that we are committed to supporting them not only in words but in spirit.

In closing, let us remember that justice is not an abstract concept. It is carried out by real people with real lives, who step forward when called upon to serve. They do so quietly, they do so diligently and they do so without expectation of recognition. It is high time we change that. Let us give the jurors the recognition they deserve.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S‑226 seeks to designate the second week of May as “Jury Duty Appreciation Week”. On the face of it, this is a small step. However, behind this simplicity lies a fundamental reality of our democracy, which is the critical role that citizens play when they are called upon to participate directly in the administration of justice. The bill's preamble clearly states that jury duty is a civic duty. It is a vital component of our justice system and therefore a central element of our representative democracy. In particular, the bill specifically acknowledges that the well-being and mental health of jurors are paramount to the proper functioning of our justice system.

Designating this appreciation week would enable us to officially recognize the commitment and dedication of thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who are called upon to perform jury duty every year, often out of a legal obligation and at considerable personal, professional and emotional cost to themselves. Serving as a juror is not an abstract role. Jurors have to put their daily lives on hold, cope with financial and professional constraints, and adhere to strict rules of confidentiality. In many cases, they are exposed to extremely disturbing evidence and testimony. We should publicly and formally recognize that reality.

This bill is also a tool for raising public awareness. Greater recognition can help governments, employers and the general public better understand the vital role that jurors play in the justice system. Too often, jury duty is seen as a nuisance or a burden, rather than a fundamental act of democratic participation. Public disengagement with jury service is real and well documented. When a significant portion of the population systematically seeks to evade this obligation, there are serious consequences. We end up with juries that are less representative of the social, cultural and economic diversity of the society they are meant to serve. When a jury is not representative, it undermines the legitimacy of the verdicts and the public's confidence in the justice system.

It is important to remember that jury trials account for only about 1% of criminal cases, but they are generally the most serious, the most complex, and the most consequential, both for victims and for defendants. Jurors have a considerable weight and responsibility on their shoulders. In that context, an appreciation week is a modest but necessary gesture of recognition toward citizens who agree to bear part of the collective burden of justice. For this reason, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

That being said, we want to emphasize a fundamental point of principle at the heart of our position. This bill must remain exactly what it is: a gesture of recognition, nothing more, nothing less. The administration of justice is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and this has been acknowledged by the government. In Quebec, this responsibility is exercised rigorously and consistently, in accordance with a distinct legal tradition deeply rooted in civil law. The selection of jurors, their compensation, the conditions under which they perform their duties, and support measures fall under the authority of the National Assembly of Quebec, and this must not change.

It is essential to note that Bill S-226 does not impose any obligations on the provinces. It does not impose any standards, programs, expenditures or administrative structures. This is precisely what makes the bill acceptable to the Bloc Québécois and justifies our support.

However, let us be perfectly clear: If the wording or spirit of this bill were to be interpreted, either now or in the future, as a backdoor federal mandate to harmonize, direct or regulate provincial practices regarding support for jurors, we would oppose it. Recognizing the work of jurors is a collective responsibility that we share, but determining how to support them in practical terms—financially, administratively and psychosocially—remains the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces.

The context underlying this bill is nevertheless worth reviewing. For several years now, studies, legal proceedings and personal accounts have highlighted the sometimes severe impact that jury duty has on mental health. We just heard about the well-known example of Mark Farrant, who served as the jury foreman in an Ontario murder trial in 2014. This marked a turning point. His PTSD diagnosis and his public testimony forced institutions to acknowledge a reality that had been ignored for far too long. His testimony was used in parliamentary work and in the report titled “Improving Support for Jurors in Canada”, which highlights the potential psychological vulnerability of jurors and the need for collective awareness.

This problem exists in Quebec, too. Although Quebec has already taken concrete action, including a more generous per diem than what most of the other provinces provide, sustaining a positive civic culture around this legal duty remains challenging. The increased reliance on penalties to compel people to serve on juries signals a wider problem and a lack of social recognition. In the circumstances, publicly recognizing the importance of jury duty may not solve everything, but it will help enhance the image of this act of civic engagement, humanize the juror's role, and serve as a reminder that the justice system also depends on ordinary people called to perform an extraordinary task.

While some will say that an appreciation week is primarily symbolic, Parliament has regularly passed such designations. Examples include Mental Health Week and the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which is valuable precisely because it is rooted in recognition, remembering and public awareness.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑226 because it recognizes without constraining, commemorates without imposing and brings people together without requiring uniformity. Any future changes to the practical support provided to jurors must involve voluntary, respectful collaboration consistent with the constitutional division of powers. The strength of this initiative lies in its solemnity and integrity of spirit.

Jury duty appreciation week must remain a tribute to ordinary citizens who perform an extraordinary civic duty in the service of justice. It is in that spirit, and only in that spirit, that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill at second reading.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise.

I had the opportunity to ask the member a question in regard to her initiative. It was interesting that, in a very humble way, she started her speech by talking about the Senate and paying tribute to the senator in advocating for what is being proposed.

I would like to echo toward the member some of the very same words she used of the senator, because I know that the member is very passionate about the issue. We were all able to witness this when she delivered her opening remarks on the bill. It takes a great deal of effort to usher legislation through the House, whether it is government business or private members' business, and I appreciate the effort that she and those individuals who were all involved in making it possible have put in, because it is an important issue.

When we think of Canadian society, we think of the fundamental principles that make us who we are as a nation. Our independent judicial system and the rule of law are things that make us who we are as a nation. Years ago I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba. The member made reference to jurisdictional control. It is not just about Ottawa. There is a very strong role for provinces to play, and ultimately, when we really want to get down to it, even for our municipalities and other stakeholders.

There are fundamental aspects within our judicial system that I think are really important to recognize, and that is what we would be doing through Bill S-226: recognizing a very important aspect to our judicial system, the right to have jurors listen and to make a determination as to some sort of consequence for a crime that may have been or has been committed.

I think that, compared to other nations, Canada does exceptionally well, but there are areas we could improve upon. Some of the comments we heard today deal directly with how. Maybe it is financial compensation in different fashions. Mental health support is another area we could expand upon.

One thing I really would like to amplify is the issue of education, recognizing that there is a need for us to acknowledge what takes place, what a juror has to go through, why it is so important that we have jurors and why we have a duty as a citizen to participate in a process that, I would ultimately argue, is second to that of no other country in the world. It is because we have that sense of recognition in the House of many other things. As has been pointed out, this is an area we need to give some attention to.

Having an appreciation week would provide all sorts of opportunities. It is not just a matter of another appreciation week that comes by, and we pass it through. The real challenge would be for parliamentarians and others, particularly individuals who are engaged in the judicial system in one form or another, to take advantage of the opportunity to promote and encourage that appreciation week.

Let me give a tangible example. Nothing prevents a local school in the community from being made aware of it and sponsoring something in the classroom. For example, at my local schools, whether it is Sisler High School, Maples or St. John's, any one of those three high schools could have an initiative to recognize this with some sort of a day, class or portion of a class to talk about our judicial system and the important role and sacrifices, and I underline the word sacrifices, of our jurors.

Often when we hear about the court process or the different types of stories that come out of courts, especially with horrendous crimes, we hear that there is a very tangible consequence for those on that jury. Enabling through education, such as the example I am giving with schools, in essence, would support one of Canada's values. It would contribute to the bigger picture of justice.

The member, in introducing the legislation, talked about the issue of compensation, and compensation is important. When we stop to think about it, a great deal is given up when people are called to be on a jury. Some of those calls could be for a fairly long period of time. We expect and hope that, if someone is called to perform jury duty, they will actually show up. The financial component to this does need to be taken seriously. I think the member made reference to $40 a day being suggested. Proper compensation, in whatever form, is what we should be open to.

The other issue is the emotional one and the potential scars that do not go away. People might be on jury duty for two weeks or two months, depending on the situation. Ultimately they may find themselves in a situation where the case is closed, done and dealt with, but people may still have these images in their mind, images that were brought to their attention and shown to them in a court proceeding. We can think of some of the horrendous crimes, such as murder, sexual assault and kidnappings. There are a lot of different types of crimes. It could be crimes involving pornography, and there are all sorts of crimes there. Once people see something, they cannot unsee it. We talk about the duties, and that is great, but let us recognize the sacrifice. The emotional toll can, at times, be very heavy and stick with people virtually for life.

I look at the legislation we have before us today, and I recognize it for what it is, which is a valuable opportunity for Canadians as a whole, in many different ways, to get a better understanding of just how important a trial juror is and of the sacrifices jurors make so that we have a justice system that is the envy of the world. I give my very best to those who have been one, and I wish nothing but the best for those who will be one going forward into the future. I recognize just how important they are.

I thank my colleague for taking the time to do the research, to work with the Senate and to bring the Senate bill here to the House of Commons, so that we could all have this debate and ultimately pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill S-226, legislation to establish national jury duty appreciation week.

Trial by jury is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society. Trial by jury is a profound expression of equality before the law, to be judged by one's peers, 12 fellow citizens. In so doing, juries play an integral role in upholding the right to a fair trial. As Lord Devlin famously said, trial by jury is “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

The Law Commission of Canada, in its 1980 report on juries, highlighted the important role juries play in the administration of justice and in safeguarding the right to a fair trial. In that regard, the commission noted that juries tackle trials anew, free from the biases and predispositions that judges may acquire after presiding over similar cases over many years. Also, importantly, juries are not in court when applications to exclude evidence are brought forward. As a result, juries are not tainted by such evidence and the consequent real or perceived bias.

There is something to be said about 12 citizens listening to a trial, being sequestered, deliberating on the evidence, challenging each other's views and reaching a collective judgment. That process gives weight and confidence to trial outcomes. For all of these reasons and more, juries perform a vital role in the administration of justice in Canada. Indeed, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for serious criminal matters and serious quasi-criminal matters.

While juries play a vital role in the administration of justice, serving on a jury often comes at a significant personal cost. When someone is called to sit on a jury, they have their work-life balance disrupted. They often have to leave their place of work for sometimes days, sometimes weeks or sometimes months. Jury duty disrupts family and social life, all for very little remuneration. As well, there is no training. There is nothing that can fully prepare someone for discharging the responsibilities that are entrusted to jurors and that are performed every day with the very significant responsibilities that come with that.

Given that there is a right to trial by jury for serious criminal matters, jurors often go through very difficult trials, where they are exposed to horrific evidence in many cases. In the face of such evidence, jurors cannot look away. They cannot close their eyes or cover their ears. They must take in the evidence. They must process the evidence and they must then, at the conclusion of a trial, be sequestered and go through the evidence. It is a stressful process. The stakes are high.

After all, what could be a weightier decision than judging whether the accused in the most serious of criminal cases could spend the rest of his or her life behind bars? That is precisely what is expected of jurors.

I have to say that even though I practised law before I was elected to this place, I did not practice criminal law, and I had not really given much consideration to some of these issues and challenges. It was not until 2017, when I sat on the justice committee, that the committee undertook the first study of its kind on juror supports. During the course of that study, many former jurors testified and told their stories about how jury service had impacted them, how it had changed their lives, former jurors like Mark Farrant and like Tina Daenzer, who served as juror number one in the Paul Bernardo trial.

Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer still suffer from mental health issues as a result of what they went through in very difficult trials, and they are, of course, not alone. Thousands of jurors experience mental health and other issues. One of the things we heard in the course of that study is that an impediment, in terms of jurors getting the help they need, is the jury secrecy rule. Pursuant to the jury secrecy rule, it is a criminal offence to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process, which, by the way, is often the most stressful aspect of jury service, to anyone, for life, even a medical professional.

That begged the question, how can a former juror suffering from mental health issues get better and get the help they need when they cannot even discuss what is the core of their injury with a medical professional?

That is why, in the unanimous report of the justice committee, it was recommended that a carve-out, an exception, be made to the jury secrecy rule. Following the issuance of the report, I worked with Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer and brought forward a private member's bill to do just that, to carve out an exception whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service can disclose all aspects of that service to a medical professional bound by confidentiality, thereby respecting the integrity of the jury secrecy rule while seeing that former jurors can get the help and support that they need and that they deserve.

Despite unanimous support at all stages, it took four bills in three different parliaments. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer, as well as Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu for carrying that bill forward in the other place. That private member's bill, and how it came about, underscores why national jury duty appreciation week is needed.

There are significant knowledge gaps. Dedicating such a week to jurors and their role would help Canadians better understand the vital role that they play in the administration of justice, as well as some of the challenges that they face. Mark Farrant said, quite appropriately, that jury service is the last mandatory form of civic duty in Canada. Each year, thousands of Canadians step up to perform that civic duty. It is time that we recognize these men and women for their contributions to our justice system with a week of appreciation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)