Bill C-25, Strong and Free Elections Act · Third reading · now law Where it stands
The law amends the Canada Elections Act to set new bans on foreign influence, bribery, unauthorized computer use, and false information about elections or candidate nominations. It restricts voting in nomination or leadership contests, bans anonymous contributions to political entities and third parties, and requires parties to have privacy policies. It also raises administrative monetary penalties, gives enforcement powers to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and changes the names of some electoral districts.
12 statements
“I want everyone to agree to let me split my speaking time with the member for Winnipeg North.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Winnipeg North.”
Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
“I am asking everyone in the House to agree to let us split the time for the first speech.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know sometimes there is resistance to listening to me speak. Could we just ask once again if there was unanimous consent, as we have been authorized and provided approval for it. We would ask for unanimous consent to share the first speech.”
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know sometimes there is resistance to listening to me speak. Could we just ask once again if there was unanimous consent, as we have been authorized and provided approval for it. We would ask for unanimous consent to share the first speech.
“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects our elections from foreign meddling, fake information, and hidden money.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have obtained the unanimous consent of the House to share my time. I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C‑25, the strong and free elections act. Bill C‑25 makes changes to the Canada Elections Act that will improve the strength and resilience of Canada’s electoral system. As we all know, one of the pillars of our democracy is our electoral system, and the Canada Elections Act is the foundation of that system. The act is already recognized around the world for its rigorous administrative procedures, robust political financing regime and strict spending limits. However, we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to the growing threats to elections that aim to undermine trust in our democratic electoral processes. Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time. Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada’s democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from persistent threats, regardless of the circumstances. That is why, in keeping with this long-standing tradition of continually improving the Canada Elections Act, our government is proposing priority amendments to address these threats. It is essential that we draw on the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on the recommendations that were made during the public inquiry into foreign interference, as well as those that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections. Bill C-25 proposes to further strengthen and secure Canada’s federal elections through several new measures. Allow me to elaborate a bit on those. As I mentioned at the outset, interference in elections can occur at any point, and it is not just in elections. Bill C-25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, it would expand the prohibitions regarding undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications that claim to come from someone that they are not, and broadcasting outside Canada with the intent to unduly influence voters to apply at any time, not just during the election period. This protection would also be applied to nomination and leadership contests. In addition, Bill C-25 extends the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that bad actors operating outside Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for their illegal acts. Bill C‑25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and covert money from entering our democratic system. This includes prohibiting the use of contributions in the form of cryptoassets and prepaid money orders for all activities conducted by political actors or for regulated activities conducted by third parties. It is important to note that under Bill C‑25, third parties will only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. However, we understand, as we have heard at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that not all third parties receive contributions and that some may wish to use their own revenues to cover regulated expenses. In this case, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual funds will be able to use their own funds to finance regulated activities. These amendments will strengthen transparency regarding the source of funds and will mitigate the risk of foreign and covert funds interfering in our elections, without depriving third parties acting in good faith of the ability to exercise their right to participate in the democratic process. The next point I want to highlight this evening is how Bill C-25 tackles the problem of disinformation. Disinformation is a key tactic aimed at stoking division and eroding public trust in all of our democratic processes. Disinformation always seeks to manipulate voters through false information that is deliberately disseminated, often online. The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 would strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the deliberate dissemination of false information regarding an election or the electoral process with the intent to interfere with the conduct or results of an election, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy. Another source of misinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 would also be addressing. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries several risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence has become increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI such as deepfakes can pose significant threats. To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 would amend the prohibition on impersonation to cover video and audio manipulation, such as deepfakes, and extend its application to nomination and leadership candidates, who are also vulnerable to such threats. When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see a ballot that lists the candidates who have a legitimate desire to stand for election and to represent their constituents if elected. That is a fundamental principle of our system of government. However, this is not the case in ridings targeted by those seeking to create excessively long ballots. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of people who have neither the desire nor the intention to ever represent the voters’ interests. Not only do these long ballots pose significant accessibility issues for voters and election officials, particularly those with disabilities, but they can also delay vote counting. That is what we heard during the study on unduly long ballots conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am therefore pleased to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 is fully in line with all of the committee’s legislative recommendations. I would add that this is one of the most robust and collaborative processes I have seen to date. At a time when security is a growing concern within our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new safeguards. For example, the home addresses of returning officers will no longer be made public; candidates will receive higher reimbursements for their personal security expenses; and the rules governing regulated fundraising activities will be amended. The last part of the bill I would like to highlight concerns the important mandate of the independent commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-25 will strengthen the tools available to the commissioner to fulfill this mandate. In closing, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, would further strengthen and secure Canada’s federal elections through targeted, priority amendments that were recommended by experts and would ensure that our legislative framework remains resilient in a consistently evolving threat environment. I urge my colleagues and all members of the House to support this really important bill.”
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have obtained the unanimous consent of the House to share my time. I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C‑25, the strong and free elections act. Bill C‑25 makes changes to the Canada Elections Act that will improve the strength and resilience of Canada’s electoral system. As we all know, one of the pillars of our democracy is our electoral system, and the Canada Elections Act is the foundation of that system. The act is already recognized around the world for its rigorous administrative procedures, robust political financing regime and strict spending limits. However, we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to the growing threats to elections that aim to undermine trust in our democratic electoral processes. Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time. Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada’s democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from persistent threats, regardless of the circumstances. That is why, in keeping with this long-standing tradition of continually improving the Canada Elections Act, our government is proposing priority amendments to address these threats. It is essential that we draw on the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on the recommendations that were made during the public inquiry into foreign interference, as well as those that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections. Bill C-25 proposes to further strengthen and secure Canada’s federal elections through several new measures. Allow me to elaborate a bit on those. As I mentioned at the outset, interference in elections can occur at any point, and it is not just in elections. Bill C-25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, it would expand the prohibitions regarding undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications that claim to come from someone that they are not, and broadcasting outside Canada with the intent to unduly influence voters to apply at any time, not just during the election period. This protection would also be applied to nomination and leadership contests. In addition, Bill C-25 extends the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that bad actors operating outside Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for their illegal acts. Bill C‑25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and covert money from entering our democratic system. This includes prohibiting the use of contributions in the form of cryptoassets and prepaid money orders for all activities conducted by political actors or for regulated activities conducted by third parties. It is important to note that under Bill C‑25, third parties will only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. However, we understand, as we have heard at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that not all third parties receive contributions and that some may wish to use their own revenues to cover regulated expenses. In this case, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual funds will be able to use their own funds to finance regulated activities. These amendments will strengthen transparency regarding the source of funds and will mitigate the risk of foreign and covert funds interfering in our elections, without depriving third parties acting in good faith of the ability to exercise their right to participate in the democratic process. The next point I want to highlight this evening is how Bill C-25 tackles the problem of disinformation. Disinformation is a key tactic aimed at stoking division and eroding public trust in all of our democratic processes. Disinformation always seeks to manipulate voters through false information that is deliberately disseminated, often online. The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 would strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the deliberate dissemination of false information regarding an election or the electoral process with the intent to interfere with the conduct or results of an election, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy. Another source of misinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 would also be addressing. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries several risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence has become increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI such as deepfakes can pose significant threats. To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 would amend the prohibition on impersonation to cover video and audio manipulation, such as deepfakes, and extend its application to nomination and leadership candidates, who are also vulnerable to such threats. When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see a ballot that lists the candidates who have a legitimate desire to stand for election and to represent their constituents if elected. That is a fundamental principle of our system of government. However, this is not the case in ridings targeted by those seeking to create excessively long ballots. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of people who have neither the desire nor the intention to ever represent the voters’ interests. Not only do these long ballots pose significant accessibility issues for voters and election officials, particularly those with disabilities, but they can also delay vote counting. That is what we heard during the study on unduly long ballots conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am therefore pleased to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 is fully in line with all of the committee’s legislative recommendations. I would add that this is one of the most robust and collaborative processes I have seen to date. At a time when security is a growing concern within our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new safeguards. For example, the home addresses of returning officers will no longer be made public; candidates will receive higher reimbursements for their personal security expenses; and the rules governing regulated fundraising activities will be amended. The last part of the bill I would like to highlight concerns the important mandate of the independent commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-25 will strengthen the tools available to the commissioner to fulfill this mandate. In closing, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, would further strengthen and secure Canada’s federal elections through targeted, priority amendments that were recommended by experts and would ensure that our legislative framework remains resilient in a consistently evolving threat environment. I urge my colleagues and all members of the House to support this really important bill.
“This bill stops foreign money from getting into our elections. Experts recommended its rules so we can track foreign money and show Canadians where election funds come from.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague sits on the committee with me. We have had this conversation extensively. We agree that the 10% in the bill would actually prevent foreign money from going into our elections. The reporting measures in this bill have been recommended by experts. We believe these are strong measures to make sure we can keep track of where foreign money is coming from and to make sure Canadians understand where funds are coming from that go into our elections.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, my hon. colleague sits on the committee with me. We have had this conversation extensively. We agree that the 10% in the bill would actually prevent foreign money from going into our elections. The reporting measures in this bill have been recommended by experts. We believe these are strong measures to make sure we can keep track of where foreign money is coming from and to make sure Canadians understand where funds are coming from that go into our elections.
“My colleague usually asks good questions. We have been working late, and I think he is just tired. I hope he asks a more serious question next time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I often appreciate the questions asked by my colleague opposite. He usually seems quite reasonable. We have been staying here later than usual for the past few days. I think that a bit of fatigue is setting in. I am sure he will have other opportunities to ask rather more serious questions.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 49 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 24 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I often appreciate the questions asked by my colleague opposite. He usually seems quite reasonable. We have been staying here later than usual for the past few days. I think that a bit of fatigue is setting in. I am sure he will have other opportunities to ask rather more serious questions.
“This bill protects our elections from foreign interference. I want my colleague to explain why making these changes is so important.”
“Bill C‑25 aims to strengthen and secure the electoral process, particularly by fighting foreign interference and other emerging threats. I would like my colleague to explain why it was so important to make these changes and follow through on this bill.”
Bill C‑25 aims to strengthen and secure the electoral process, particularly by fighting foreign interference and other emerging threats. I would like my colleague to explain why it was so important to make these changes and follow through on this bill.
“We need this bill to keep protecting our elections and maintain trust in them. We are following advice from experts and the Chief Electoral Officer.”
“Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. She took part in a number of discussions with experts and witnesses that highlighted the importance of protecting our elections. As I mentioned earlier, we are following the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and other experts. The world is changing. We know that we already have a robust system, but we have to keep putting security measures in place to protect our elections and maintain Canadians’ trust in our institutions.”
Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. She took part in a number of discussions with experts and witnesses that highlighted the importance of protecting our elections. As I mentioned earlier, we are following the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and other experts. The world is changing. We know that we already have a robust system, but we have to keep putting security measures in place to protect our elections and maintain Canadians’ trust in our institutions.
“I want us to inform Canadians honestly instead of misleading them.”
“Mr. Speaker, I used to be a staffer here. I remember a time when we all used our time in the House to inform Canadians, not mislead them, not switch information to sound like what it is not. I really want us to get back to that place.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 49 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I used to be a staffer here. I remember a time when we all used our time in the House to inform Canadians, not mislead them, not switch information to sound like what it is not. I really want us to get back to that place.
“I support this election bill. Parties worked well together to fix it in committee. But the Conservatives are delaying our work. They voted to sit late, but then they kept trying to go home early and wasting time on extra votes instead of debating.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25, which is an encouraging piece of legislation. I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference. Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today. Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o’clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted. Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously. That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate. Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20, building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion. They wanted to call it quits early yesterday. All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives’ desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time. Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16—”
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand to address Bill C-25, which is an encouraging piece of legislation. I would like to break my comments into two areas: one is to try to explain what has been happening over the last 24 hours, and what has ultimately led us to Bill C-25; and the other is dealing specifically with Bill C-25, and why it is encouraging when there is a high sense of collaboration in the House, when parties on both sides see the merit in passing legislation and working together collaboratively at committee stage. It does make a difference. Where to start? I know there has been confusion, even among some of the members of Parliament, let alone the individuals who are possibly watching on the screen, in trying to follow and understand what has taken place that has led us to where we are today. Yesterday we had a motion that was accepted by all members of the House of Commons. We all agreed that we wanted to sit until midnight for the remaining days, with the exception of Fridays, when we would sit until eight o’clock. That was indicated clearly, and that is the manner in which everyone voted. Where are we today, and why is there confusion about some very important pieces of legislation, including Bill C-25? We have to put it in the perspective of what took place yesterday leading to the call for a vote at report stage. Report stage is a fairly straightforward aspect of the legislative process. Typically, what would happen when there are no amendments is that we would see the legislation pass on division or, in this case, pass through report stage unanimously. That is what should have happened, and then we would have begun the debate right away. Instead, the Conservative Party wanted a recorded vote, thereby wasting 45 minutes of what could have been debate. That is what they cry about all the time, that they want more debate. Let us backtrack. Why did we get to the point we are at right now? Yesterday, contrary to what the Conservatives voted for when they stood up and said, “Yes, we want to sit late,” implying to Canadians that they were prepared to work, it only took them an hour or so to move a motion to adjourn. During the debate on Bill C-20, building Canada strong, building homes across Canada, a very important issue, they said they wanted time to vote, and what did they do? They moved an adjournment motion. They wanted to call it quits early yesterday. All that did, because a majority of the House, including the Bloc and the NDP, voted down the Conservatives’ desire to go to bed, was ultimately force them to continue to work late, as millions of Canadians do from coast to coast to coast. They did not necessarily want to answer the questions I had for the member when he moved for adjournment, as we lost the opportunity because of time. Fast-forward to today, and what have we seen? First, we had the deputy whip of the Conservative Party move to adjourn debate on Bill C-16—
“Conservatives complain they do not get enough time to debate bills, but then they try to end the day early to stop our work. They tried twice today to stop debate on our crime bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25, as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20, dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast. Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again. They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate. After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate. Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—”
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member across the way understands that there are individuals who are following the debates as we sit later in the evenings to see what we are doing, whether it is the government or the official opposition, to justify our late sittings, and they see why and how time is wasted, for example with Bill C-25, as I started talking about. It is not just on Bill C-25. We also saw it yesterday on Bill C-20, dealing with building homes from coast to coast to coast. Today, we had a very important crime bill that was being debated, Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and the Conservative deputy whip stood in this place and moved adjournment, thereby stopping debate once again. They say they want to have more debate time on legislation and complain that they are not getting enough time, but instead of debating, what are they doing? They want to adjourn the House. In other words, they are saying that they want to stop and go home. No surprise, that motion by the opposition deputy whip was defeated. Then we had a little more debate. After that debate, the Conservative deputy House leader stood in this place and once again attempted to stop the proceedings of the House. Instead of debating the crime legislation the government is proposing, they wanted to stop the proceedings of the House and go home, for the second time today, once again preventing valuable time on the floor of the House of Commons, because only five hours are left for debate. Instead of debating the bill, they said, “No, we do not want to debate.” They used that particular tactic not once but twice today. They failed once again, as we saw the Bloc, the New Democrats, the Greens and the government say no. We then went into report stage—
“The Conservatives are delaying our work instead of debating. We need to pass this bill to protect our elections. It follows expert advice to stop foreign interference. It stops people from putting too many fake candidates on ballots. It also sets up a panel to watch for election threats all year long.”
“Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting. On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing. Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting. One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation. It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot. The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate. Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections. There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader—”
Mr. Speaker, what happened then was that we went into report stage. As I started my comments, the Conservative Party once again, instead of having debate, requested yet another vote. That is an hour and a half of just bell‑ringing, and another 45 minutes in order to accommodate the voting. On the one hand, the official opposition is saying that it wants more time to debate legislation, but that is not really the issue. What it really wants is more time to filibuster. That is really what it is all about: preventing crime legislation and the Build Canada Homes act from passing. Having said that, let us talk about the debate. As the deputy House leader articulated exceptionally well with respect to what Bill C‑25 would do, I want to highlight two aspects of the legislation that I think are worth noting. One is that the legislation we have before us is based on recommendations that have actually been provided by the foreign interference inquiry, Elections Canada, the commissioner of Canada elections and many other stakeholders who have actually contributed to the legislation. It would deal with, in a substantial way. For example, the long ballot issue has been an issue for a while now. The bill has two proposed measures that would have an impact and that members should be aware of. Number one is that within a constituency or a riding, as a voter, a person would be able to sign for only one candidate being nominated or having their name on the ballot. The second thing it would do is say that if someone is going to be an official agent, they can do so for more than one candidate if the candidates are in different ridings, but that in any given riding, someone can be an official agent for only one candidate. Those two initiatives would deal with what has been a serious concern of Canadians and elected officials. There are many other aspects to the legislation, such as making sure, year‑round, that potential threats to our elections would actually be monitored by a panel of experts. It would not be just during elections. It would also be in between elections. There is a great deal of substance within the legislation. All one needs to do is listen to what the deputy House leader—
“The Conservatives waste hours by delaying votes, but then they complain that they need more time for debate. They should stop playing games and act in a way that Canadians support.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates. I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 31 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, the member is concerned because I had shone a little bit of light and explained to Canadians the silliness and the games the Conservative Party plays all the time here in Ottawa. I spent six minutes, maybe close to seven minutes, while the Conservatives wasted well over two hours ringing bells. At the same time, they are crying for more time to have the debates. I would suggest that members of the Conservative Party should reflect on their behaviour and maybe, rather than their silliness, take actions that are more inclined to have the support of Canadians.
