TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-06-11 Sitting 134 Showing 1–13 of 13

A bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, aiming to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process by establishing new prohibitions related to foreign influence, voting in nomination or leadership contests, and the use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties. The bill also provides new requirements for political parties' policies on the protection of personal information. During the debate, the Liberals highlighted the robustness of Canada's electoral system and the importance of maintaining trust in democratic institutions, while the Conservatives raised concerns about third party financing loopholes and the influence of foreign entities in Canadian elections.

Official Hansard ↗

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 6:40 p.m.

“I'm tired of sitting here voting so late. I'm going to bring up Quebec to make a point about party fundraising. Quebec limits donations to $100. Why didn't the committee make federal limits that low? I'm bothered that people can give $1500 to meet the Prime Minister.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Alexis Deschênes

Bloc Québécois 6:45 p.m.

“I want to look smart and serious. It took 150 years to ban bribes! Our system has been broken this whole time. We need this bill to fix it.”

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau

Bloc Québécois 7:00 p.m.

“I want the bill changed. It could be better. I won't say how. I just want it to do more.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 7:10 p.m.

“I want public money for political parties. People can't afford to give parties enough money. Never mind that we already give them tax refunds. The other guys did something bad. Do I want to win, or get votes by complaining about them?”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 7:15 p.m.

“I'm filling time with kind words about a musician. Then I'll talk about the elections bill. I'm happy it bans foreign influence and fake messages. But there's one measure I don't like - voters can only sign one candidate's nomination form. That makes their vote public and it's harder for some candidates. I like to debate so I even signed for my opponent once. But this bill limits choices and I think that's wrong. I'm glad it bans anonymous political contributions. That shouldn't have ever been legal. I also happy about more money penalties for violations. We're changing the names of some ridings. It's good that local people chose them together. I wish we went further and restored public funding based on votes, not donations. Too much money in politics means some will have more influence. We should fix that. We should also think hard about riding sizes and representing constituents well. Maybe we should add proportionality. But we can't create distance between MPs and the people. Even my riding is big to drive across. That makes it hard to know everyone. We need to keep that in mind as we change things. Overall I support the bill but I have some concerns.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to a dear friend who will be celebrating a 60-year career this weekend. His name is Normand Branchaud. Early in life, Ti-Nor got his first harmonica for the modest sum of $3.50 by running errands in the village. At age 17, he made his first appearance before an audience at the École Rinfret in Sainte-Ursule and then got up on the back of a truck in a church parking lot one June 24. What a way to kick off a career. He would go on to perform with the Dassonicks, Les Jags and the Cousins Branchaud, and his prolific musical career now continues with the FADOQ Band, which occasionally allows me the honour of joining in. He is also an honorary member of La Bottine Souriante, the band that has made a star of his son Jean-François. Ti-Nor is a fantastic comedic storyteller who still has a lot of music left in him. He often says that he will not stop playing music until his eyes close for the last time, but I bet he will find a way to keep playing on the other side. Hats off to Ti-Nor, and I send him my congratulations on his 60 years in music. With that out of the way, I will return to today's topic, namely Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. We have worked hard to support this bill. It is good to ban foreign influence because it poses a significant risk. Electoral disinformation, spreading false information, is something we have already seen in past elections. Voters have received fake messages directing them to the wrong address, the senders knowing full well that many of them would be discouraged from going on to the correct address if they encountered a problem. I see the member for Terrebonne over there. She went through quite an unusual byelection with 48 candidates, I believe. I do not remember the exact number. It was nuts. One thing this bill would do is put a stop to that. To handle that particular situation, Elections Canada created blank ballots and asked voters to write in the name of their chosen candidate. This approach could lead to error or misinterpretation, especially when people are holding a list of candidates long enough to hit the floor. People with low literacy skills could make mistakes. This kind of thing must not happen again. That is why something had to be done. The bill would also ban “brownies” from leadership races, which used to be legal, apparently. That is hard to fathom. When I heard about it, I was gobsmacked. Obviously something has to be done about it. However, one particular measure worries us, and that is removing the option for a voter to sign more than one nomination form. I think the government has made a mistake. I find this rather regrettable. The Bloc Québécois raised this issue and proposed an amendment, but it was not adopted. There is a problem here. A voter who agrees to sign a nomination form will know that they can sign only one. This is almost like making their vote public. However, it is the voter's privilege to keep their vote secret. I think the government should have preserved that principle. Then there is the issue of more difficult ridings or certain areas where it sometimes takes our candidates time to collect the necessary signatures. This bill would limit people by allowing them to sign only one nomination form. I believe I have said this in the House before, but I think members will be proud of my democratic credentials: I once signed the form of my own political opponent, because I believe in democracy. The guy was nice, I enjoy debating people and I want my constituents to have choices. I think that the government has erred on that score. The ban on accepting anonymous political contributions is a big win, however. I fail to understand why it was legal before. We also support increasing administrative monetary penalties for certain violations. The names of certain ridings are changing. That is the case for three ridings currently held by the Bloc Québécois. Some of our members asked for these changes after consulting with their constituents, local elected officials and the wider community. They came to a consensus. I assume in good faith that the other members from the other political parties did the same thing. The riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon will be called “Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent” going forward. It is a lovely name. The riding of Jonquière will be known as “Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. Why not? It is quite poetic. As for the riding of Rimouski—La Matapédia, its member bucked the general trend and proposed expanding the name, because his riding covers such a vast territory. In order to ensure that the riding name reflected everyone in it, the name chosen was “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. I will close with this. I am sure members heard the question I asked my Conservative colleague. Other changes could have been made, including restoring public funding for political parties. Quebec is doing it. Once again, Quebec is ahead of federal legislation. Donations are limited to $100 per person. There is no tax credit, and public funding is paid out based on the number of votes received. That takes the pressure off. In contrast, the federal system allows for a maximum donation of $1,750. As I said in my question earlier, few of us and few of our constituents can afford to donate $1,750. That means that some people with more money might think that, by giving such a significant amount, they might have more influence on the elected member in the future, even if the member is not corrupt. Objectively, we should review that and lower these amounts. That would be very important. There are other things that could have been done. My colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj spoke earlier about the size of the ridings. I just talked about “Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques”. The breath I just took to say the name of the riding helps us understand how big a geographical area it covers. This is getting to be a problem for conscientious members who believe that, in order to represent people, we need to know them. In order to get to know them, we need to meet with them often. In order to meet with them often, we need to travel around our riding. I am lucky in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé. It has 37 municipalities, which is a lot, but they are concentrated in a fairly small area. I can drive across my riding in an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half. Not all members are so lucky. Still, an hour and 15 minutes or an hour and a half by car is not next door. That means that, on any given day in my riding, driving for three hours is routine. It takes me 50 minutes to get to the office, and I live in my riding. It is clear that this is a problem. We should keep this in mind going forward. If we want to revise the method or perhaps introduce proportionality into our electoral system, we will need to keep this in mind. It would be good if the percentage of votes were better represented in Parliament. Some of the more marginal parties that still receive a significant share of the vote could be represented. Conversely, we have to make sure that we do not create distance between members and their constituents, the people they represent, because that is fundamental; it is extremely important. That is what allows us to do our work effectively, while keeping both feet on the ground. That is all I have to say on the matter. We are, of course, in favour of the bill, but we have reservations about limiting the number of signatures.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 7:25 p.m.

“You're great and everyone likes you. I agree with you about riding sizes. We should review political financing. It's not fair to some people who want to participate. Can you talk more about that?”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 7:25 p.m.

“I like the new riding name. It's poetic. Good job to the poet who named it. I did talk about political financing earlier. Not many people can afford the maximum donation. Some people who donate a lot might think it will give them influence over the politician. I'm not saying everyone does that, but it could happen. Quebec changed their law to cap donations at $100 and give political parties public funding. I think we should do that too to have a healthy democracy.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from—and I will take the liberty of referring to the riding by its future name—“Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets”. I do not know if my colleague heard me earlier, but I mentioned that the name is quite poetic. Bravo to our poet from the north. I did also speak about political party financing. I mentioned earlier that few people can afford the maximum donation of $1,750. We have to be realistic. Furthermore, people who can afford it may have an ulterior motive when they donate. They may think they will have some influence over that elected official. I am not saying everyone does that, and I am sure there are people who make this kind of donation who do not think that way. I commend them. However, the risk exists. That is why Quebec amended its law, capping donations at $100 and reinstating public funding for political parties. I think it would be very wise to reinstate public funding for political parties to ensure a healthy democracy.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Patrick Bonin

Bloc Québécois 7:25 p.m.

“I want more public funding for political parties. Quebec does it. Canada should do it too.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 7:25 p.m.

“Quebec is ahead on many things, like childcare. Canada should copy Quebec's policies more often. I want a committee to study election ideas like Quebec's public funding for political parties.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, sometimes Canada looks to what is being done in Quebec, although it typically takes too long to do so, child care being one example. Indeed, we are often out in front. I often say in my speeches that the country of Quebec already exists. I am sure my colleague would agree. We are already very different in terms of our culture, how we organize ourselves, our political culture and our entrepreneurial culture. The fact that we are already a country is also clear from our more progressive and social democratic measures. Child care centres are a good example of this. Perhaps we can see what happens when I officially call on the members opposite—government members who have the power to do this—to set up a committee to review political party funding and even the voting system. Fundamentally, what the people behind this bill want is a more representative voting system. I think that discussion is warranted. We should have it. I call on them to do this and, as always, I am open to collaboration.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 7:25 p.m.

“When the electoral map is redrawn, it should consider communities' shared interests. My riding got split between two different areas. That's not fair. We need to think about the community of interest idea more.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech, my colleague referred to the size of certain ridings. When the electoral map is redrawn, there are two concepts. First, there is the concept of the quotient, which is the population base, and then there is the concept of community of interest. Unfortunately, the latter is rarely respected, much less used, when an electoral map is redrawn. As a result, communities that have no similar economic interests sometimes wind up lumped together. That is what happened in my riding. A rather major distinction is made in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Residents come from either Saguenay or Lac-Saint-Jean. Unfortunately, when the map was redrawn, they took small communities from Lac-Saint-Jean and lumped them in with Saguenay, causing an uproar. We will work hard to represent these people as they deserve, but I think it is important to support this idea of community of interest. Can my colleague elaborate on that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 7:25 p.m.

“I have to represent a lot of different areas now. It's a lot of work for me to adapt to each one's needs. Quebec should get to set our own riding boundaries.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but Canada does not take these things into account when it reviews the electoral map. As elected officials, we can meet with members of the electoral commission. They will listen to what we have to say about changes to the riding boundaries. In my case, I was very lucky during the last election. The beautiful area of Saint-Sulpice was added to my riding. In fact, I would like to say hello to the people there. I am very pleased to represent them. It is a gorgeous spot on the St. Lawrence. Every day, I learn more about this magical little corner of the country. However, that means that there is now a fourth RCM in Berthier—Maskinongé, in addition to the city of Trois-Rivières. I am a very versatile and adaptable person. I can represent the specific interests of these people, but it requires a great deal of flexibility on my part because Saint-Sulpice is part of the Montreal metropolitan area. It is in the same riding as Pointe-du-Lac, which is the part of Trois-Rivières that I have the honour to represent. It is another equally wonderful part of the country filled with people I adore, but they have different challenges and perspectives. We need to be more versatile. Perhaps we should take a closer look at Quebec's electoral boundaries during the next electoral redistribution, unless we have become an independent country by then. Let us hope so, Mr. Speaker.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Patrick Bonin

Bloc Québécois 7:30 p.m.

“I want to go back to the old issue of electoral reform that you mentioned. The government promised us proportional representation but didn't deliver. We need to keep demanding this so Quebec gets a bigger voice.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Repentigny, I can only echo the previous comments made by my colleague. There are three towns in the riding of Repentigny: Charlemagne, Repentigny, and L'Assomption. Saint-Sulpice used to be part of the riding. My colleague mentioned community of interest. Saint-Sulpice is part of the L'Assomption RCM. I agree with my colleague on the importance of fully understanding what the repercussions might be for these communities if they become part of a different riding. However, I would like to come back to another point my colleague raised, namely the issue of proportionality. How might we reform the voting system while effectively maintaining regional representation? I would like to emphasize that, in the past, the government committed to implementing a more proportional system. Unfortunately, that commitment was set aside. We had an opportunity to bring this issue back to the table. I believe we must keep it on the agenda and keep it alive. I would like to know what my colleague suggests.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 7:30 p.m.

“I want to keep Saint-Sulpice in my riding. My colleague and I work well together, but it can be harder if people are from different parties. Proportional representation would make sure every vote counts and is represented in Parliament.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I must unfortunately inform him that I now represent the people of Saint-Sulpice. I love them and I am keeping them. The advantage is that it forces me and my colleague from Repentigny to work together, which is very positive, but it can be more difficult when people come from different political parties. Sometimes, it is even harder if they do not get along. In our case, of course, we are in perfect harmony. I will now talk about proportionality. People need to feel that their vote counts for something. Some people vote for a party that never stands a chance of winning the election. Some ridings are considered strongholds. This concept exists in Quebec, it exists in Canada and it exists pretty much everywhere. In those places, the same political party always wins, because a large segment of the population has rather fixed views. I see one of my colleagues over there who has been an MP for a very long time. It would be surprising if he lost his riding. There are some voters who might want to vote for another political party because they have never had the privilege of meeting the friendly MP who represents them. Sometimes, they do not bother to vote because they tell themselves it does not make a difference. That is where the danger lies. Proportional representation would ensure that, overall, there would be a balance and that the public's vote would be better represented in Parliament.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates