House of Commons Hansard #133 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elections.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act Members debate the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-14, which targets bail and sentencing reform. Liberals propose adopting specific changes while rejecting others as redundant. Conservatives, including Larry Brock, criticize the government for relaxing surety restrictions. The legislation seeks to enhance public safety and further address repeat violent offenders while maintaining judicial discretion and Charter protections. 4200 words, 25 minutes.
Food and Drugs Act Second reading of Bill C-265. The bill creates a pre-approved list of therapeutic products to streamline special access. Supporters argue it reduces administrative burdens. While cross-party support exists for the objective, the Conservatives seek amendments to ensure safety and prevent drug diversion, while the Bloc emphasizes provincial jurisdiction. The House has referred the proposal for committee review. 7700 words, 1 hour.
Protecting Victims Act Third reading of Bill C-16. The bill strengthens protections against gender-based violence, targeting coercive control and femicide. Conservatives criticize clause 63, fearing it allows judges to bypass mandatory minimums. While supporters emphasize victim support and modern updates, the debate focuses on whether the legislation's judicial discretion creates an inappropriate "get-out-of-jail" card for serious offenders. 8200 words, 2 hours.
Strong and Free Elections Act Report stage of Bill C-25. The bill, titled the strong and free elections act, amends the Canada Elections Act to address foreign interference, disinformation, and AI risks. Government members argue these updates strengthen democratic integrity, while Conservative MPs critique the bill for allegedly failing to close loopholes regarding foreign financing, while also questioning its effectiveness in preventing interference during nomination contests. 3400 words, 1 hour.
Strong and Free Elections Act Third reading of Bill C-25. The bill amends the Canada Elections Act to address ballot flooding and foreign interference. While the government moves to impose time allocation, the Bloc Québécois criticizes the quashing of debate. Conservatives generally support the provisions aimed at election integrity but argue further amendments are necessary to close remaining loopholes regarding foreign funding for third parties. 4200 words, 35 minutes.
Adjournment Debate - Employment Garnett Genuis criticizes the government for ignoring youth unemployment, proposing a plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, invest in vocational training, and increase housing availability. Jennifer McKelvie defends the government's approach, citing existing investments in summer jobs, skills strategies, and new initiatives for recruiting skilled trade workers. 1300 words.
Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the world in 2026 is much different from just a few years ago. The world has changed, and we must change with it. We must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world.
I would like to hear from my colleague about how the bill would expand prohibition on undue foreign influence.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. There are a number of initiatives in the bill. That is one of the reasons I highlighted the two areas: foreign interference and having the panel not only during an election but year-round between elections. That is an essential aspect of the legislation.
Worldwide, Elections Canada is seen as a first-rate, independent election system, and it is something we should all be very proud of. It is constantly asked to make presentations to other jurisdictions on how to make democracy work well in a country. Elections Canada is a wonderful ambassador for Canada.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome. Among them are measures to counter the undemocratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee, which caused significant disruption in a number of ridings in the last election and in several by-elections by effectively flooding the ballot with fake candidates. This was all for the purpose of sowing confusion, making it more difficult for Elections Canada to administer elections and tabulate the vote, and undermining general public confidence in the voting process.
This bill contains measures the Conservatives called for quite some time ago. It took the government quite some time to finally move forward with legislation to address those gaps and those loopholes that were taken advantage of by the longest ballot committee, but this bill does that, and we welcome those measures. Additionally, we welcome measures in the bill to establish new offences and to extend other offences to leadership races and nomination races to counter foreign interference.
The bill would also provide needed new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections and increase administrative monetary penalties to give those penalties some teeth with respect to contraventions of the act by individuals and organizations. I would observe, however, that I have some concerns with respect to the powers that are being given to the commissioner insofar as the commissioner would have the power to compel evidence without judicial authorization.
I would also note that when one looks at those powers, combined with the powers to impose administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for organizations and entities, it begs the question of whether there is, in fact too, much discretion being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. In that regard, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, if, in fact, a contravention reached the level of imposing a $100,000 fine, it would seem to me that in the circumstances, the better course would be for the commissioner to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions to proceed by way of criminal prosecution.
While there are measures in this bill that the Conservatives broadly support, it is far from a perfect bill. There are measures that could have been included in this bill that would have gone a lot further toward strengthening the Canada Elections Act, strengthening the integrity of our voting process and safeguarding our elections, which the Liberals unfortunately did not include.
I also have significant concerns about the failure of the Liberals to close well-recognized loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into third parties to influence voters at election time. Fundamental to our democracy is how elections must be decided by Canadians, and Canadians alone. Unfortunately, what we have in this country, which we have had for years, are foreign interests and foreign governments that have used third parties to influence our elections.
There are two well-recognized loopholes. One is a melding loophole, wherein certain contributions, including foreign contributions, are treated as part of the general revenue of a third party that can in turn then be used for regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods. The other loophole is one whereby foreign funds are treated as Canadian funds to third parties. In that regard, I would note that if, for example, foreign entity A transfers funds to Canadian entity B, and Canadian entity B transfers those funds to a third party, at present, those funds are treated as funds coming from Canadian entity B, even though the true source of those funds is foreign.
This loophole is not a hypothetical loophole. In 2017, I brought forward a complaint to the commissioner of Canada elections with respect to $700,000 U.S. that was funnelled from the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation to a British Columbia entity. That entity then disbursed the $700,000 U.S. to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates. The commissioner of Canada elections, in response to my complaint, advised that there were no contraventions of the act, or at least no contraventions that could be made out, and the reason for that is this loophole that presently exists.
I have to say, I think Canadians would be alarmed that it is, in fact, that easy for foreign interests and foreign governments, with witting third parties, frankly, to use foreign funds to influence how Canadians vote and what issues are brought to their attention in the lead-up to and during an election.
It is completely unacceptable that the Liberals have been aware of these loopholes for 10 years now. In fact, they benefited from these loopholes. They benefited from the use of foreign money, just as the Liberals benefited from Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and have, up until now, refused to take action.
Before I say what this bill would do, I would just add that the loopholes I am speaking about are ones that have been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. I raised these loopholes multiple times with the Chief Electoral Officer when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. He also acknowledged these precise loopholes in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, and he called for those loopholes to be closed.
This bill purports to close those loopholes, and it would do so with a general requirement. It would require third parties to set up a separate bank account, and the funds going into it can come only from individual Canadians. This would be a positive measure. It is one that we have long called for. It would address issues around foreign interference and foreign influence insofar as the funds would be from individual Canadians.
The bill would provide much needed transparency. We would be able to more easily track and see exactly who is donating to third parties that, in turn, seek to influence Canadians in the lead-up to and during elections. It would also treat third parties on par, more or less, with political parties insofar as political parties can use contributions only from individual Canadians. This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.
If that is good, it begs the question, “What is problematic?” It is problematic that this would be a general rule, but there is a big exception contained in the bill, which is that third parties may continue to use their own funds and their own general revenue. In other words, they would not have to set up an individual bank account and they would not be limited to individual contributions, provided that the contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period. In such a case, funds used by the third party would be treated as commingled, whatever the source.
That is not my interpretation. When I posed a question to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, and asked him how this exception would work and exactly what funds third parties would be able to use, he said in his answer, “They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds.”
If a third party can use contributions coming from its own revenue, whatever the source, and such funds are commingled, then it follows that commingled funds could be foreign funds. When I raised that issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, he conceded that “the practical challenge is true there as well.” The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that, yes, effectively, where this exception applies, third parties would be able to use foreign funds.
As a result, the bill would close loopholes with respect to the use of foreign funds, but then create a new loophole. If it does not create a completely new loophole, it would continue the loophole around the melding or commingling of funds, including foreign funds.
The Liberals will say this is an exception, not the rule, and it would only apply if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue, meaning that it should not apply to very many third parties. However, who is to say this is so, and who is to say 10% or less of a third party's revenues, being contributions, is an insignificant amount of money? There are many third parties that have tens of millions of dollars, so 10% could amount to millions of dollars of foreign funds.
I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the general rule of having to set up individual bank accounts and relying exclusively on the contributions of individual Canadians, whereas some of the bigger, more influential third parties would continue to be able to get away with using their own funds, including possibly and likely foreign funds in some cases.
It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer has supported this type of an exception, and in that respect, the government has adopted what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended. I can see that point, but I respectfully disagree, and I have made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that I disagree with his position. I have challenged him on his position on a number of occasions. The argument that he has put is that there are charter issues around freedom of speech.
However, there is no case authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has cited. The best he has offered and the best the Liberals have offered is this vague argument. It is a vague argument notwithstanding, by the way, that when this issue was presented at committee, a number of witnesses, including an esteemed constitutional lawyer, including Professor Lori Turnbull and including Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, said that, yes, this loophole, this exception, would result in foreign funding and that, given the very serious issues around foreign interference, this loophole would be taken advantage of by foreign actors, including hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime. As I noted, it has been taken advantage of by other groups in not necessarily hostile foreign states, but in other states such as the United States, like through the Tides Foundation.
The position we took is to get rid of the exception, create an equal playing field for all third parties and require every third party to set up an individual bank account. Our position was to require that all third parties, without exception, could only accept contributions from individual Canadians. That would be simple, it would be fair, it would be transparent and from an administrative and enforcement standpoint, it would be far better and far easier than the complicated framework or scheme set up by this legislation in respect of setting a threshold of contributions that constitutes 10% or less of the third party's revenue and that the period be in the year prior to the pre-election period.
If one were to take at face value the charter issues that have been, and again I underscore the word “vaguely”, cited, I would question how this exception would satisfy them. If these charter issues are so real and so pressing, then why is it that with this legislation, the Liberals would be requiring that, as a general rule, third parties set up an individual bank account that accepts only contributions from individual Canadians. If that infringes upon—
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to interrupt the member. The member's time for debate has concluded.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have been told I have unlimited time. I did not split my time.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
I know you could go two hours.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
An hon. member
Sit down. The Speaker is up.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I thank the members to the right of me. I can handle the responsibilities.
The member did have a 20-minute slot. I am verifying with the clerks here, and they are saying that is correct. It is a 20-minute slot with 10 minutes of questions and comments.
I have risen. There was 20 minutes. The member has concluded.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague, and I know how much time he has spent on this particular bill as well. On the idea of controlling the money and all of that, I would be interested to hear what other amendment or change my colleague thinks could be done that would improve the bill and answer the concerns that he has.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed was simply to remove the exception and simply to require that all third parties be required to set up an individual bank account and that they only be able to receive contributions from individual Canadians. We believe that would be charter-compliant and that it would, to the greatest extent possible, close loopholes around foreign funding and foreign influence through third parties.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Before I recognize the next speaker for questions and comments, I just want to clarify what is written in the Standing Orders.
I am going to switch to English, just to make sure the member understands.
Regarding the length of speeches at third reading stage, pursuant to Standing Orders 43 and 74 the first member of each recognized party in the first round of speeches has 20 minutes maximum, and speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period. Those are Standing Orders 43 and 74, to clarify for all members and make sure all members understand. There are lots of standing orders and very many numbers. It is easy to confuse them, but that is the rule.
The hon. member for Rimouski—La Matapédia.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. My colleague did not get to finish his speech, but I imagine he had a great deal more to say. It is actually quite remarkable that Bill C-25, which amends an act, also changes the names of certain ridings.
It has been over a year and a half since the last election. I made a promise to my constituents to give the riding a name that better represents it. I wanted it to be called Rimouski—Neigette—La Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques. The current name, Rimouski—La Matapédia, does not reflect the entire territory.
I would simply like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees, based on his experience, that it would have made more sense not to wait a year and a half before changing the riding names. This work could have been done a long time ago, rather than putting it off indefinitely.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would agree. This could have been done sooner. The government did not need to wait a year and a half to do this. Also, I would note that the name change that the member has proposed and that would be changed through this bill would, I believe, restore what had been the name of the riding at one time.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit perplexed to be rising to speak before the House, given that the parliamentary secretary across the way criticized me just a short while ago for moving to adjourn the debate. However, we are now learning that it was actually the Prime Minister who did so, according to a Radio-Canada article that was just published. Allow me to read an extract:
Vacation time has (already) started in Ottawa
The members of the House of Commons are on vacation. Mark Carney's government has announced that—
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
Order.
Members may not refer to the Prime Minister by name, even in a quote.
The member may finish his question or comment.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I should have said that the Liberal Prime Minister's government “has announced that the House has adjourned for the summer”.
Can my colleague, who is the critic for institutions, explain to me why we are still debating here in the House when the Liberal Prime Minister has announced that the House has already adjourned for the summer? I am completely baffled. Did he, by any chance, intend to adjourn the House at the end of the day? I would like my colleague to clarify that.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think it underscores the fact that the Prime Minister is AWOL when it comes to this House. It underscores how disconnected he is from the business of this House and how little attention he pays to the business of this House. Perhaps he should consider showing up for once.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, that is a little much. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister actually voted on the silliness of the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party did not even show up. In fact, 13% of the caucus—
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. This has been dealt with before. Members cannot make a reference to the presence or absence of a member, including in the past. That cannot be done in the House.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to find a different way of saying what he wants to say, and then we will continue with questions and comments.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 has received quite a bit of support. We saw that support at the standing committee. There were no amendments brought forward at report stage. It would appear to me that the Conservatives are supportive of passing the legislation, which is a good thing. The government is providing us the opportunity tonight to ensure we at least have some debate.
I wonder if the member could just talk about what he feels is actually, generally speaking, positive legislation that has received overwhelming support, whether from Elections Canada, to a certain degree, or members of the House of Commons.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I agree. There are many measures in this bill that we support, that we have long called for. We have worked with the government, getting it through second reading stage, over to the procedure and House affairs committee.
We brought forward some amendments where I think there was a missed opportunity, however. There was an opportunity to fully close well-identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding to third parties. That is something that is unacceptable that needs to be corrected. Those loopholes do need to be closed.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems that the members opposite are unaware of the news that the House has apparently adjourned, according to the Liberal Prime Minister. I therefore seek unanimous consent to table the Radio-Canada article to inform them of the decision that the Prime Minister seems to have made without telling them.
Bill C-25 Third ReadingStrong and Free Elections ActGovernment Orders