“We will support this bill to improve our election laws, but it does not go far enough. It still leaves a big loophole that lets outside groups take foreign money between elections and use it to influence Canadian politics.”

“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.”

“This election bill does not go far enough. We need stricter rules on outside groups spending money in elections. The election commissioner also has too much power to give out fines without a judge checking the decision. We also need to set up the foreign influence registry.”

“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.”

“I mostly support this election bill, but I am disappointed the government rejected our changes. We wanted better security at ballot boxes and fewer loopholes for outside advertising. We will keep pushing the government to make our election laws stronger so Canadians can trust our votes.”

“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.”

“Foreign money and foreign groups have interfered in our elections since at least 2015 to defeat Conservatives. I want the member to talk about this problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know third party advertising and the involvement of foreign governments in our elections is a big problem. It reared its head back in 2015. I am sure the member remembers back in the day. This is a headline from 2017: “Controversial Leadnow active in B.C. politics, Vancouver city affairs”. We originally sort of brought the evidence forward that this was occurring. The article refers to “claims filed last week with Elections Canada—and reported this week by the Calgary Herald—that foreign money ‘spawned’ Leadnow and helped fund an elaborate campaign to oust the ruling Conservative Party.” I would ask the member to speak to this issue. It is a big deal, and we even see our colleague across the way from Toronto affected by shenanigans in elections. Maybe the member can just speak to what happened back in 2015.”

“People in my riding work in resource jobs like forestry and oil. They are worried about rich foreign foundations spending money in Canada to influence our policies and stop resource projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies and I would have very similar constituents. They are hard-working, honest, patriotic, law-abiding Canadians who love going hunting and fishing. They work in forestry, mining, oil and gas and agriculture. These are folks who are very concerned about foreign money coming from foundations. Folks at home who want to go and look this up can take a look at some of these foundations, like the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation or the Tides foundation. These organizations do not just have a few thousand or a few hundred thousand dollars, or even a few million dollars. They actually have assets worth billions of dollars, and they are able to create organizations, like Leadnow, in another country and then fund them, with this massive foundation that they have, to influence policies in another country. This is very problematic. A good friend of mine, Vivian Krause, has actually exposed much of how this money gets brought into Canada to fund various organizations and groups to block resource development in Canada. It is very frustrating.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 34 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government is taking too long to set up the foreign influence registry. This election bill also has a big loophole that lets foreign money fund third-party political ads. The Liberals voted against fixing it, just like they have delayed stopping foreign ownership in our west coast fisheries.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who voted for us and depend on us to be their voice here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant, and they depend on us to be their voice. We have to be ready for the challenges and dangers that emerge, and I accept that responsibility with sincere dedication to the amazing people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the people of Canada. We must all take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome challenges and dangers, including the the unintended consequences caused by the actions or the inactions of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and actions more than at any other time. As I begin speaking to this bill, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, I would like to thank all of the Elections Canada workers, from the electoral district returning officers to the poll workers, the volunteers and the ever-important scrutineers who are such an important part of our democratic system here in Canada. I will speak to components of this bill, Bill C-25, and how parts of it are overdue while other parts need further debate and consideration for what is best for Canada and Canadians’ interests. After the 2021 federal election, Canadians were alarmed to hear of foreign interference in the election of candidates and members sent here to represent and defend this country’s interests. The Liberals say they care about democracy, yet they have allowed foreign actors to brazenly interfere in our elections. It was only after the Liberals got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing’s interference that they finally introduced legislation to establish a foreign influence registry in Canada. However, two years after passing that bill into law, there is still no registry. So far, we have had date after date promised and date after date missed. After years of opposing a foreign influence registry, including Conservative efforts to create one, the Liberals’ latest tactic appears to be one of endless delay. It is time for the Liberal government to finally take foreign interference seriously. It is time to get a registry up and running, today. I must say that this is uncannily similar to an issue dealt with in my role as associate shadow minister for fisheries, and that is the issue of foreign ownership of licences and quota on the west coast. The last Conservative government put in motion policies to stop the issue of controlling agreements between processors and harvesters on the east coast, where processors were limiting harvesters’ choice of where they landed their catch and how much they received for their catch. In the following years, legislation and regulations were put in place to end those controlling agreements and protect local fish harvesters and their communities on the east coast. In May 2019, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. In that report, there were 20 recommendations to government that would have helped meet the aspirations of fish harvesters, especially young fishers, to carry on their careers and family traditions and contribute to building economically, socially and culturally vibrant west coast communities. In 2023, four years later, that same fisheries committee undertook another study to produce yet another report, titled “Foreign Ownership and Corporate Concentration of Fishing Licences and Quota”. The testimony we heard during that second report was alarming in that after four years, the government had taken almost no action to identify who the beneficial owners of licences and quota are on the west coast. In fact, what we basically heard was that it has no idea. It is now seven years since that first report on the issue was tabled in the House, and the Liberal government has yet to address the issue and put in place any significant measures to protect our independent harvesters on the west coast. That is why I say that Bill C-25 and the west coast fisheries issues have something in common. It is delay, delay, delay. If the Liberals do not find it important enough to create a foreign influence registry or to investigate whether foreign entities own licences and quotas, and who controls, catches and processes our Canadian seafood, then Conservatives will hold them accountable, and we hope that Canadians will expect that accountability from their government. Another component of the bill that I want Canadians to be aware of is the third party financing loophole. Bill C-25 would create a wide open loophole through which foreign money could still be used by third parties for partisan activity, partisan advertising and election surveying. Specifically, if contributions to a third party amount to 10% or less of its annual revenue in the year prior to a fixed election year, it could use its own funds to pay for, among other things, partisan activity and advertising. A third party’s own funds do not have to come from Canadian citizens or permanent residents and do not have to be reported in the same way. With fixed election periods, it is very easy for third parties and foreign interests to predict when an election may be. A foreign interest could funnel money into a third party for two or three years ahead of schedule, which would then be treated as part of the third party’s own funds. Further, 10% sounds like a small number, but it may not be. There are third parties that have a lot of money. What constitutes 10% or less of a third party’s revenue coming from contributions may in fact be millions of dollars. This means that very large third parties would be able to use their own funds for election-related expenses. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against our amendments to close these wide open loopholes in the bill. I raise these points as part of this debate because that is what we as elected representatives are sent here to do, to scrutinize legislation and make it the best it can be. What we have seen from the government since I first came here in 2015 is not the best legislation it could be. Conservatives will continue to call on the Liberal government to strengthen Canada’s position against foreign actors who seek to influence our economies and our democracy.”

“The government needs to close the loophole for third-party funding. Foreign groups could spend millions of dollars to influence our elections.”

“Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening, she would have heard me speak about the third party financing loophole. There could be millions of dollars spent by foreign entities to affect the nomination and election of candidates and representatives who are elected to ensure the security and safety of our country. If anything, this has to be the one piece that should have been addressed, and the government should recognize that.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We used to give candidates tax dollars based on how many votes they got. Now, only individual people can donate, and there is a limit. This makes elections fairer. It forces candidates to work hard to earn support from local voters instead of relying on government money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question on political financing. Prior to when I was elected, there was what was known as a per-vote subsidy. If a member got a certain number of votes in the previous election, they got that subsidy from the taxpayer. What has changed now is that there is a maximum amount that individuals, and they must be individuals, not corporations, can contribute to an election candidate. That levels the playing field. To be elected, candidates have to work for the funds they need to use for their campaigns. They cannot just run on the money they raised because of the votes they got in the previous election. It is an incentive for candidates to work hard for their constituents so they can be recognized by and have support behind them from individuals in their riding.”