Debates of June 11th, 2026

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this legislation. Bill C-267 is an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances.

At first glance, the bill may appear straightforward. Canadians want products that last longer, they want affordable repairs and they want to get the maximum value from the products they purchase. These are reasonable goals. However, this bill represents a significant departure from the practical, targeted approach that the Conservatives and the Liberals have previously supported when it comes to consumer choice and the right to repair without imposing broad, regulatory structures. In the last Parliament, there were two bills. We had Bill C-244, from Wilson Miao, and Bill C-294, from the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

Bill C-267, however, takes a different path. Instead of removing barriers and empowering consumers through targeted legislative changes, it proposes to create a broad national framework that would require federal intervention in product design, product durability, repairability standards, information disclosure requirements and supply chain considerations across numerous industries. The difference is significant. Bill C-294 sought to remove obstacles. Bill C-267 seeks to create a new regulatory framework.

I cannot help but outline the significance this legislation would have in the context of electric vehicles, based on some of the debate that took place earlier today. Is the government really proposing to tell China how to regulate its battery production when we just conceded 30% of our market share? I do not think so. I think this bill would open up a world of unforeseen problems for Canadian manufacturers.

The bill would direct the federal government to develop a framework touching on numerous aspects of product durability and repairability. While supporters may view this as a simple exercise, businesses often experience such frameworks quite differently.

Frameworks frequently become regulations, and regulations create reporting requirements. For years, Canadian manufacturers have contended with the surge of low-cost imports. Rather than alleviating this imbalance, existing tariff structures have exacerbated the strain on domestic firms. Many Canadian companies are now forced to absorb things like tariff costs or share them with customers, eroding their competitiveness and limiting access to key markets. At the same time, the slowdown in the housing market is reducing domestic demand, further tightening margins for Canadian producers. The result is a concerning trend of increased import penetration, declining domestic production and the early stages of business closures across the sector. Without intervention, any future growth in the industry will likely be driven by imports, rather than by Canadian manufacturing. This is especially concerning at a time when Canadian businesses are already facing significant economic pressures.

Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and small businesses are navigating inflationary pressures, labour shortages, supply chain challenges and increasing operating costs. Adding another layer of federal regulation might satisfy bureaucratic ambitions, but it would not help Canadian consumers or business competitiveness and, ultimately, I do not believe it would help the consumer. In fact, it would risk limiting consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products to the Canadian market.

The Conservatives believe the government should focus on enabling competition and innovation, not expanding bureaucracy through yet another framework. Before imposing new obligations on businesses, Parliament should have clear evidence that those obligations would produce meaningful benefits that outweigh their costs. That evidence has not been demonstrated in the bill before us.

Perhaps the greatest concern is the potential impact on consumer choice. Supporters of this bill argue that it would help consumers, which is the opposite of what I said. However, regulations often produce those unintended consequences.

When governments impose additional requirements on products entering the marketplace, manufacturers face higher compliance costs. Some companies absorb those costs, others pass them on to the buyers, and some simply choose not to offer certain products in smaller markets. Canada is not the largest consumer market in the world. We represent a relatively small share of global demand. If regulatory requirements become too complex or too costly, some manufacturers may decide that offering particular products in Canada is no longer worthwhile. I can only imagine the number of attempts by manufacturers who might try to circumvent any new regulations in Canada as well.

The result will be fewer choices for consumers, not more. The result could also be higher prices, particularly for low-cost products that many families rely upon. Canadians are already facing affordability challenges. Many families do not have the luxury of purchasing premium appliances or high-end electronics. They depend on affordable options that fit within their household budgets. If new regulatory requirements increase manufacturing, certification, distribution or compliance costs, those costs will inevitably be reflected in the price consumers pay at the checkout counter. Conservatives believe that consumers are best served by competition. Competition encourages innovation and quality. When consumers have choices, manufacturers must compete to earn their business.

One of our primary concerns with this legislation is the risk of federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction as well. Consumer protection, property rights, repair services, commercial regulation and many aspects of marketplace oversight traditionally involve provincial responsibilities. Several provinces have already been examining right to repair measures and consumer protection frameworks that reflect their own economic circumstances and priorities. The federal government should be cautious before establishing a national framework that could duplicate, overlap or conflict with provincial authorities.

Canadians are frustrated when governments create multiple layers of regulation that accomplish the same objective while increasing complexity and compliance costs. Unfortunately, Bill C-267 risks doing exactly that. Rather than creating another federal framework and empowering our public service with more tools to look at certain products, we should focus on policies that encourage competition, support innovation and reduce barriers for businesses operating in Canada.

Finally, I think we should draw some parallels when we see the public service trying to over-regulate in the Canadian context, and that would be with natural health products. Across Canada, we have natural health food stores practically on every main street. They are a staple of Canada's economy. Small business owners across Canada, for the last number of years, have been decrying the government's desire to intrude and impose new regulatory frameworks that would push their business out of Canada and into online markets. Effectively, with natural health products, the government's approach has essentially meant that businesses are saying they do not have a future in Canada anymore. People are still going to be able to buy the products they were offering locally, when they were paying taxes in Canada, but people will have to buy the products on Amazon from an American supplier, because that is still legal to do anyway.

The government needs to take another look at this legislation. It needs to find better ways of ensuring that the electronic products we use do not impact Canadians' health, and focus on those issues, but ultimately leave the choice to consumers as to whether they want to buy a certain product.

Instead, this bill proposes a broad framework with uncertain implications for businesses, consumers, provincial jurisdictions and the marketplace as a whole. At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability, Parliament should be cautious before advancing legislation that risks increasing costs and pushing business out of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, imagine a family standing in an appliance aisle because their washing machine has broken down. They are already dealing with higher grocery bills, higher mortgages, higher rent and higher utility costs. They are looking at the price tags and trying to make the best decision for their household. One model is more expensive but may last longer. Another is more affordable and fits their budget today. That family should have the freedom to make that choice.

Bill C-267, despite its good intentions, risks having Ottawa make that choice for them by creating a broad new regulatory framework that could increase costs, reduce options and make essential products less affordable for Canadians.

Every single one of us gets frustrated when products break too soon, when repairs are difficult or when replacing an item seems easier than fixing it. Those concerns are real. Canadians should be able to repair the products they own, access reasonable repair options and receive clear information about the products they buy. However, the question before us is not whether durability and repairability are good things. The question is whether Bill C-267 is the right way to achieve them. On that question, Conservatives have serious concerns.

Bill C-267 would require the Minister of Industry to develop a national framework on the durability and repairability of electronic products and essential home appliances offered for sale, distributed or sold in Canada, whether they are made here or imported. That framework would include measures related to minimum useful life, labelling, access to parts, tools and repair information, replacement parts, technical documentation, software support and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. The bill also contemplates future legislative measures, including obligations on the industry, inspection mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance.

That is a very broad scope. It goes well beyond simply helping Canadians fix what they own. It opens the door to a new federal regulatory framework over a wide range of consumer products, many of which are already subject to complex supply chains, international standards, safety requirements, warranties and provincial consumer protection laws.

Parliament has already taken steps in that direction through targeted right to repair legislation. In recent years, members from different parties have worked to address practical barriers that prevent Canadians from repairing the products they own. For example, in the 44th Parliament, Bill C-244, introduced by a Liberal member, addressed the issue of digital locks by allowing circumvention for the purpose of diagnosis, maintenance and repair. Also in the last Parliament, Bill C-294, introduced by a Conservative member, addressed interoperability by allowing consumers and businesses to use third party parts, systems and devices without being blocked by copyright rules. Both bills received royal assent in 2024.

Those were targeted changes. They focused on removing specific legal barriers that made repair more difficult. They did not impose broad new federal product standards. They did not create a national framework for minimum product lifespans. They did not open the door to sweeping new rules on labelling, replacement parts, technical documentation and the like, and that distinction matters.

Conservatives have supported practical right to repair reforms because they can empower consumers, support farmers, help small businesses and improve competition. As we consider the best policy response, we should focus on measures that remove unnecessary barriers to repair, support competition in repair markets and give consumers better information without imposing rigid top-down requirements that may not fit every product category, or even consumer need.

At a time when businesses are already struggling with red tape, tariffs, supply chain pressures and weak productivity, we should not support legislation that could add new compliance costs and uncertainty. Canadians deserve products that are durable. They also deserve affordable products. They deserve repair options, but they also deserve marketplace choice. They deserve consumer protection, but—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The member is rustling papers near the mic and it is causing problems.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member.

It is a good time to interrupt anyway, because we are at the five-minute mark. It is a good reminder, just to make sure there is no interference with the microphones.

I recognize the hon. member for Bourassa for his five-minute right of reply.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today about Bill C-267.

Someone's refrigerator breaks down. They call a technician, who says that the part is no longer available, that the repair manual is missing or was never available and that the cost of the repair exceeds the price of a new appliance. That person is then forced to spend $500, $1,000, or even more, to replace something that should have been repaired. This is not bad luck. It is a business model. It is called planned obsolescence. These appliances are deliberately designed not to last and not to be repairable in order to force people to repair them. This model costs Canadian families dearly every year.

The solution is a collaborative national framework. That is what Bill C-267 proposes: a response that is both simple and ambitious—a national framework for sustainable and repairable electronic products and essential devices. It is not a rigid regulation; it is not an encroachment on provincial jurisdictions. It is a flexible framework developed in collaboration with the regions, the provinces, industry and consumer advocacy groups that would finally give Canadians the right to know, the right to choose and the right to repair.

In practical terms, the bill sets minimal durability standards and requires the availability of spare parts, technical documentation for independent repair persons, and clear labelling so that consumers know what they are sinking their money into before they spend it. Through this bill, Canada is simply catching up with the rest of the world. The European Union introduced a right to repair directive in 2024. The United Kingdom passed its legislation back in 2021. In the U.S., over twenty states have taken action with bipartisan support. Apple, Samsung, LG and Whirlpool are already adapting these standards to their other markets. This means a minimal burden for Canada. The benefit for families will be substantial, tangible and real.

We may wonder who is going to benefit. First, Canadian families that cannot afford to replace everything once a year will benefit; the repair shops that my colleagues mentioned earlier will benefit; local SMEs, often run by tradespeople and immigrants who are currently denied access by manufacturers to the parts and information they need to perform repairs will benefit. Most of all, the environment and our planet will benefit, because each appliance repaired rather than discarded represents a resource conserved and one less piece of trash.

Repair is an integral part of Quebec and Canadian culture. I know several associations and groups in Bourassa, Montreal and elsewhere in Quebec that help people with their repair projects.

Today I would like to talk about the community of activists and volunteers who help people with repairs. One example is Wai Chu Cheng in the riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park: She is the co-founder of Repair Café in Toronto, Ontario. This culture is not confined to Quebec or Alberta; it is across Canada.

In closing, I am reaching out to my colleagues from all parties, all regions and from every province. This is not a partisan bill. It is a sensible bill. It makes a lot of sense because it provides that things can be repaired instead of merely replaced, that we can be informed instead of being unaware, and that we can work together instead of imposing anything.

I think of the families in Bourassa and across the country who are watching what we do here today. The bill is not a partisan project. It is a promise to every household that deserves better: to repair, not replace, to inform, not ignore, and to collaborate, not oppose. That is what I believe, and that is what I ask the House to stand for.

Let us refer this bill to committee, where we can improve it together, hear from witnesses and strengthen it.

That is what Canadian families deserve, and that is what this bill delivers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the bill be carried on division.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, we ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Bill C-14—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Notice of Closure Motion

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 11, 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.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts. Copies of the amendment are available at the table.

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 third time and passed.

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Ponoka—Didsbury

In Canada, we are privileged to have a strong and internationally recognized electoral system. Canadian democracy is among the most stable and resilient in the world, and the Canada Elections Act is recognized for its robust safeguards, strict rules on political financing and high standards of transparency.

In addition to this solid framework, the strength of our electoral system also lies in its ability to evolve. The rules that protect our elections must adapt to the realities of our time. Today, as we can see throughout the world, democracies face growing threats, whether through the malicious use of technology, foreign interference, disinformation or other attempts to undermine public confidence in democratic processes.

To maintain Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our elections, it is therefore essential to continue strengthening the mechanisms that protect our democratic process. Public trust is the very foundation of democratic stability, and we must strive to preserve and strengthen that confidence at all times.

That is why Bill C-25 proposes several practical measures to address current challenges, including addressing the problem of excessively long ballots, banning deepfakes of election officials, further protecting the integrity of leadership and nomination races, enhancing measures to prevent foreign interference, strengthening the enforcement of the act and improving federal requirements for the protection of personal information by federal political parties.

These amendments did not come out of nowhere. They are well reasoned and based on recommendations made by experts during the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, as well as by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections.

Over the next several minutes, I am going to review some of the measures set out in this bill and try to explain why I think they are important and why we should support them.

The bill contains measures that seek to prevent excessively long ballots. We will achieve that by allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form per riding and by requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent.

Why are we doing that? It is because, over the past few years, we have seen a group of activists disrupting elections. Dozens of candidates in one riding had the same official agent and their nomination forms were signed by the same people. In some cases, we ended up with dozens of nominations for people who had no real intention of participating in the democratic process and who were really only trying to disrupt the democratic process that we want to protect.

Let me give a few examples. In the last election in Terrebonne, nearly 40 out of 48 candidates were people who had no real intention of campaigning. As a result, instead of a normal ballot, we ended up with a blank ballot. In Battle River—Crowfoot, 200 out of 214 candidates were not really serious ones. In LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, during a by-election two years ago, we ended up with 91 candidates and a ballot that was a metre long.

This has real consequences because it makes it harder for some people to participate. When voters are given a blank ballot and there are people who struggle with literacy or have difficulty writing, it makes it harder for them to participate in this democratic process. It shows a lack of respect for these voters. It also shows a lack of consideration for well-intentioned candidates who want to represent their community.

I believe these changes strike the right balance between preventing candidacies intended solely to disrupt the elections and ensuring that serious candidates are allowed to run. By serious candidates, I am referring not only to those representing the major political parties in the House, but also, of course, to independent candidates who are genuinely committed to their communities and wish to represent them, as well as candidates from smaller political parties.

The rules will not prevent this type of candidacy, since people will only need to have a single agent and collect the required number of signatures. With these changes, I think we have struck a good balance that will prevent excessively long ballots while still allowing serious candidates to run in elections.

The bill also provides for various safeguards, particularly against the malicious use of new technologies in elections. As we know, various technologies are emerging, including artificial intelligence, and it is becoming increasingly easy to impersonate people online. For example, with AI, people can create videos in which they pretend to be someone else. People can be made to say things that they never actually said. In the context of an election, that can be dangerous and highly problematic.

Imagine a candidate in an election. Someone makes a video in which the candidate appears to say all sorts of nonsense, and then posts it on social media. People who see that video might decide not to vote for that candidate. Someone could also make a fake video to impersonate an election official. For example, someone could impersonate the Chief Electoral Officer and give false information about the location of the polling station, the date of the election or the instructions to follow in order to vote. That could undermine the democratic process. That is why we are going to ban deepfakes.

We will also strengthen safeguards for the use of IT systems in elections. We will tighten the rules on hacking or tampering with IT systems and databases with the aim of disrupting an election. As has already been mentioned, the issues are changing, and technologies are evolving. It is important that our regulatory framework keep pace and reflect the times we are in.

We will also put stricter rules in place regarding political financing. Canada has one of the strongest political financing systems in the world. Since we are always looking to improve, we are going to introduce certain new rules to strengthen the system, particularly with regard to preventing foreign interference. This is an issue that has garnered significant attention in recent years. There was a commission on the subject. We have also seen several democracies around the world face foreign interference issues. We therefore want to close all possible avenues for foreign financing that could interfere with our democratic processes in Canada.

For example, we will prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions. This includes, for example, contributions made using cryptocurrency, prepaid cards or other forms of prepaid payment. It is not possible to clearly identify who is behind these contributions. We want to prevent foreign agents from making contributions using cryptocurrency or other forms of unidentified payment, for example.

We will also prevent third parties, organizations, businesses, unions, or citizens who are not candidates, from organizing regulated political or election-related activities, such as election advertising or partisan activities, and accepting untraceable contributions. That way, it will not be possible to circumvent the rules. For example, cryptocurrencies cannot be used to fund an organization that would then finance partisan activities. We are shutting down those avenues as well.

We will explicitly prohibit foreign actors from funding regulated activities, such as partisan activities or election advertising, carried out through third parties in Canada. These contributions must come exclusively from Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

In our democracy, there are other key moments besides general elections. One example is leadership races within political parties. These can have a major impact on our democracy. Consider the leadership races to elect the new leader of the official opposition or the next prime minister. These are events that have tangible consequences.

Nomination contests also come to mind. When several candidates in a riding want to stand for the same party, a nomination contest is arranged. These processes are also watershed moments in our democratic system, and we are going to strengthen the rules to better protect them.

In fact, a number of rules that already apply to general elections will now apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests. I am referring to rules about preventing foreign influence. For example, third parties will not be able to accept foreign funds to arrange nomination race activities. Other rules relate to the prevention of intimidation, bribery and identity theft. All of these procedures, already in use for general elections, will also apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests.

Through these carefully crafted measures, all based on assessments and consultations, we will strengthen our democratic system which, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, is already very strong.

I believe that these changes will help maintain Canadians' trust in our democratic institutions. Accomplishing this work is essential.

I think most of my colleagues in the House share that opinion, and I look forward to seeing Bill C-25 receive royal assent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all starting to feel a little worse for wear—sitting here until midnight, constantly voting and dealing with closure motions. In short, we are all in the same boat, and we are all telling ourselves that we need to be strong, that we will get through this.

I am going to ask my colleague a very simple question. How is it that, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had the opportunity to consider this issue, it did not give more thought to or examine political party financing more closely?

My colleague knows very well that Quebec National Assembly settled this issue long ago. During an election year, a member may make two contributions of $100. However, there have been reports in the media about fundraising events where people are invited to meet the Prime Minister in exchange for a contribution of $1,500.

How is it that this limit has not been lowered?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Canada's political financing system is among the strongest in the world. When we compare ourselves to other democracies, we see that there are already several mechanisms in place to ensure that funding actually comes from Canadian citizens.

We will close off the various avenues that could allow for foreign influence. Contribution limits are already in place. Canadian citizens have to be the ones contributing to political parties. We have a rigorous framework.

Bill C-25, which is based on various recommendations from experts, will allow us to make this framework even more rigorous in order to ensure the integrity of our elections.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech.

Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill? I would also like to hear him speak about the collaboration that made it possible to move this bill forward in a very short time.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, maintaining trust in our democratic institutions is essential. We have a robust electoral system and framework in Canada, but to keep it strong, we need to adapt it to the challenges of our time.

I believe that by working together in the House, we will be able to maintain trust in our democratic institutions and make the necessary changes.

As we are seeing in other parts of the world, some democracies are facing challenges. There are instances of abuse and situations where the public is losing confidence in its democratic institutions, which has serious consequences.

That is why I believe that in Canada, where trust remains high, we must continue to work to preserve it by strengthening our democratic institutions and passing Bill C-25.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and riding neighbour for his contribution.

I would like to add a dose of moderation to our discussion. People boast that our electoral system is strong. However, it took a bill, the one that we are about to pass, to make it clear that bribes meant to force a vote, or bribes meant to persuade someone to vote one way or another, are prohibited.

The infamous “brownies” made headlines. How does my colleague explain the fact that we had to wait over 150 years following Confederation before a clause like this was introduced?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there are already measures in place to protect the integrity of the election itself. When someone runs as a candidate or raises money for a political association, the contributions are registered and certain information must be provided. There is already a framework in place for that.

That said, some situations, not necessarily at the federal level, that the media have reported on have led us to propose amendments to further strengthen our electoral system.

My colleague talked about nomination contests and leadership races. Several provisions that currently apply to general elections under the Canada Elections Act did not apply to leadership races or nomination contests. Therefore, it is not just this specific example that is being addressed; a whole series of measures will now apply to nomination contests and leadership races.

As I mentioned in my speech, I think it was essential to take action. General elections are obviously important moments in our democracy, but so are nomination contests and leadership races. These events have real consequences, particularly for the composition of the House.

I think that taking some of the measures already set out in the Canada Elections Act and applying them to these other important moments in our democracy is a good decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to this government legislation again, Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. I am a member of the procedure and House affairs committee and have scrutinized this proposed legislation in my capacity there. I also spoke about this bill a couple of months ago, in mid-April. In that speech, I highlighted that this is a much-needed piece of legislation, one that Conservatives have been calling for since before the 2019 election.

There are some good things in the bill, some much-needed tools to help handle foreign interference in our elections. However, as I noted not even two months ago, it does not go far enough, especially with how it pertains to third party fundraising and foreign contributions. As we heard clearly from expert witnesses at the procedure and House affairs committee, Bill C-25 would improve the protection that Canadians have with respect to the electoral process, including from dangers posed by hostile foreign actors. However, it would leave some major holes, primarily regarding foreign contributions outside the election period.

How do we know this? We know because we as Conservatives are the ones who have been advocating for changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with this very issue for quite some time now. I will take some of the folks in this room way back with me to May 8, 2019. That is the day that my private member's bill, Bill C-406, was voted down at second reading in this very chamber. The goal of the bill, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to foreign contributions, was to deal with exactly this problem then, the same problem we are talking about now, seven years ago and three elections before the one that we just had.

The bill I proposed, Bill C-406, was a bill that would have amended the Elections Act to prohibit foreign contributions to third parties for election advertising purposes. This is very important to me, because third party funding certainly comes in the form of advocacy and is used by third parties in campaigns to campaign against what I would consider to be the financial interests of the people I represent and of my home province, Alberta.

I also understood at that time that, just out of a matter of principle, Canadians and Canadians alone should be the ones funding, debating and voting in a Canadian general election. It does make sense. Foreign entities and countries outside our borders likely should not be able to fundraise or spend money for political purposes here in Canada. That in itself is a breach of public trust and is, I think, by very definition of course, a semblance of foreign interference, whether it is happening covertly or not. If we do not know about it, it is a problem.

My private member's bill would have stopped that foreign fundraising that influences our elections here in Canada. It would have addressed the very issues that Bill C-25 claims to address. Here we are, nearly a decade later. Members will never guess what happened. The Liberals voted against the bill, including the Liberal MP for Scarborough—Guildwood—Rouge Park, who is now the public safety minister, the same one who is now overseeing a new foreign agent registry that was recently introduced by the Liberals, despite his having been rabidly opposed to such a registry when it was the Conservatives, my former colleague Kenny Chiu, who proposed it. This is one of those that make a person go, “hmm”.

It is almost as if the Liberals will support a good policy only once they have been dragged through the wringer to actually see that it is a good idea. I do not know why that is, but they just genetically oppose every idea we pose to them until their ideas start to miserably fail and afflict Canadians some four to eight years later. Then, all of a sudden, they see the light and do the things we have been telling them they should have been doing all along. It does not exactly breathe confidence into the issue of dealing with foreign interference, does it?

We know that this is a theme. The Liberals often chastise Conservatives for big, sweeping policy ideas, but give it half a decade, and once the chickens come home to roost on the cabal of bad ideas across the way, they will eventually adopt Conservative ideas, rebrand them and package them as their own. The Prime Minister did it at Oxford with his thesis and is doing it here as well in the House of Commons. I only wish the Liberals had long ago adopted my idea of banning foreign nationals and entities from donating to and supporting third parties for election advertising purposes. It seems like common sense to me, but that might not be such a common thing across the aisle.

We studied the issue at length at committee, where we heard from several witnesses, including, most recently, Gerald Chipeur, that the bill does not go far enough and would need to crack down even harder on foreign monetary contributions. In other words, there would still be a gaping hole that would allow foreign entities to send money to third parties, which could end up influencing, affecting or being spent in our general elections.

The bill would crack down, but it would not prohibit. It would not go far enough. There would still be wide open loopholes for foreign funding to pour into Canadian elections. Foreign contributions for political purposes would still be allowed in Canada; Bill C-25 would not change that. Lots of witnesses who came before the procedure and House affairs committee testified that, in their opinion, this is completely unacceptable. I think that most Canadians, if they knew money was coming in to third parties from outside Canada and being spent on elections advertising, would be quite concerned.

What also came out of our foreign interference study at committee, perhaps most notably, was our former candidate Joe Tay's testimony. Mr. Tay was our Conservative candidate of record in Don Valley North. Former Liberal MP Paul Chiang put a bounty on him during the 2025 election. Chiang encouraged folks to turn Mr. Tay in to the Chinese consulate in Toronto for a cash reward. There was already an arrest warrant for Mr. Tay, issued by the Communist regime in Beijing for making pro-democracy comments from here in Canada about what is going on in Hong Kong and China. This was a Liberal MP at the time basically encouraging the kidnapping of a political adversary. Goodness knows what would have happened if Mr. Chiang had actually gotten his way.

We also know, based on testimonies at the committee from volunteers on Mr. Tay's campaign, that they were stalked, followed, intimidated and harassed by individuals. These were campaign volunteers, for crying out loud. It is hard enough to find people to come out to participate in our elections. The last thing we need is foreign entities and foreign funds coming in to discourage, intimidate and harass campaign volunteers, regardless of the political party they are helping. This is just wrong across the board. It is wrong not just when it happens to Conservatives; it is wrong when it happens to Liberal, NDP or Bloc members, or to anybody.

Since these incidents, the Prime Minister has praised Paul Chiang as a person of integrity, and he has also strengthened Canada's ties with the People's Republic of China through trade and security partnerships. Just over a year ago, on the debate stage during the 2025 election, the Prime Minister admitted that the biggest threat to Canada's security was the Communist regime in China. I am not sure, but I would like to know where that Prime Minister went. Across the aisle, the Liberals expect us to believe that they are serious about halting foreign interference. They will have to give me a bit of a break, because I am not buying what they are selling. I try to make it make sense, but it just does not.

We are talking about the individuals who are interfering in our elections and meddling in our campaigns. They are targeting our people, and they are spending money on propaganda campaigns that endanger Canadians, especially those in specific diaspora communities. The bill would do nothing to solve these problems. Sure, the bill would crack down on foreign spending during the writ period, but it would leave a massive hole for foreign entities to pour money into political advertising outside the writ period.

For folks that are watching at home and wondering what the writ period is, I will explain. There is a writ period, and when we have a fixed election, there is a pre-writ period, and then there are the three years in between. During those three years, third parties will not be required to separate the molecules, per se, so any money that comes in to those third parties from foreign entities during that time frame will not be scrutinized by Elections Canada. They can just bankroll all these things in the pre-writ period and then spend as much as they want during the writ period during a fixed election.

Do not take my word for it; this comes directly from constitutional legal experts who gave their testimony at a committee and said that they agreed with the exact interpretation we had when we read the bill. It would still leave that gaping hole.

Conservatives have been talking about foreign interference for nearly a decade. After 2021, our leader at the time brought up the issue of foreign interference in our elections. He was supported by our former colleague, Kenny Chiu from Steveston—Richmond East, who warned for years about foreign interference before being a victim of it himself.

These are the issues we have had. We have had a public inquiry into foreign interference. The government dragged its feet on that and finally succumbed to the mountains of pressure that were put on it at the time. It seemed to be reluctant the whole time. It is almost as if the foreign interference regime that had been orchestrated in the last couple of elections had a blind eye turned to it, because it obviously benefited somebody in the chamber.

I am glad to see that it looks like the government is trying to change its ways and is presenting this bill. Conservatives still have massive concerns with it, but we will be supporting the bill and would make sure the Canada Elections Act is, if not perfect, at least better than it is today.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting from the member opposite, who also sits on the committee with me, is the fact that he said he is not buying what we are selling, though we worked in collaboration with their team to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible. Maybe he could help all members of the House let Canadians know which parts of the bill he supports and which he does not support.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues that are certainly a bit problematic. I laid that out in my speech. I trust that my colleague, who sits on the committee, was also there when we were asking specific questions about just how third party funding is still allowed to happen in the general elections of Canada. Our position as Conservatives is that we should be clamping down on that even more. Is it being clamped down on a bit more than it was before? Yes, it is. Has it gone far enough? No, it has not. Are there still issues with the commissioner of elections potentially having a bit too much power and authority now, without having a second set of eyes like a judge or somebody? The amount of administrative penalty that can be levied right now is certainly a bit problematic.

Obviously, we are happy with what has happened with the longest ballot committee, but we think more could have been done there as well, and it would be nice if we could finally get that foreign interference registry stood up.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since we sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a number of meetings. We were just starting the study, and I am pleased to have an outcome like this.

My question for my colleague is quite simple. What is missing from this bill that would make it even better, although maybe not perfect?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not on the procedure and House affairs committee anymore, but we spent years there, particularly in the previous Parliament when foreign interference was front and centre and prevalent not only at the committee but also in the national spotlight, and I want to thank her for her work there.

The Bloc Québécois has some issues with the bill. The Conservatives have some issues. Some of those are the same, some of those are different, but we broadly support the measures contained in the bill. We are disappointed that the government voted down certain important amendments that we put forward, like mandating better security at ballot boxes and closing third party advertising loopholes, for example. We are going to continue to call on the government to strengthen the Canada Elections Act to make sure that we can have confidence and trust in the institutions of the Government of Canada, particularly in the institution that is responsible for delivering elections, which are the foundation of our democracy.