“I move that we debate this election bill for only five more hours, and then vote on it right away.”

“moved: That in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.”

“We are here to work for Canadians. The member voted to work late until midnight, but three hours later he voted to end the day early. That makes no sense.”

“Mr. Speaker, l first want to say to my hon. friend, in the spirit of the season, that I can well understand why anyone with the very evocative riding name of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies would be very anxious and excited to return to that place. It sounds like an amazing place, and I hope to visit the member someday. However, in the meantime, we are here to work. The member, perhaps, did not hear my earlier answer to his deputy House leader, where I expressed my real surprise. Yes, indeed, we are asking members of Parliament to work a little harder so that we can get the job done for Canadians, but that member voted to extend the hours until midnight. He was for that. Three hours later, he voted to adjourn the House. We did not quite understand that. That sounded like a contradiction.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 41 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 analysis →

“I respect the member for representing a very large rural area. Still, in our democracy, every person's vote must carry equal weight, no matter where they live.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat to the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj that he too must be looking forward to returning to his riding. He does indeed represent a very large riding. I admire all members, all elected officials, who drive long distances, often very late, and in all kinds of conditions, including winter conditions. It is obviously very challenging to represent people who are spread across a vast area and who, in his case, are separated by the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I really commend my colleague for that. That said, in a democracy, we must do everything in our power to ensure that every vote carries equal weight, whether it is cast in Montreal or in Percé. We always try to respect that fundamental principle, one that is actually recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.”

“The Conservatives are trying to delay this election bill. Even so, parties in this House have worked well together to agree on the new election rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine how beautiful the panorama of the Bow River is this time of year. The member has only been here for a year. I have been here 11 years and have witnessed the very imaginative ways the Conservatives conceive of to delay, stall and otherwise obstruct the passage of legislation, even, as the member points out, legislation as non-controversial and consensual as this bill is. I do want to take a moment to express my appreciation, in terms of the development of this bill, for the co-operation that I have received from all parts of this House. It is a signal testament to this country that, at the very minimum, we can all agree on the rules of the game and change the Elections Act without rancour.”

“Voting districts can vary in size and population. But in a democracy, we must make sure every person's vote has roughly the same power.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very important principle, particularly for those of us who like to be close to our constituents. It is clear that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that I mentioned allows for some variation in the populations of ridings, as well as in terms of distances and riding size. However, in a democracy, we need to ensure that one vote carries roughly the same weight as another vote cast elsewhere. It is a matter of finding the right balance. I think the members of the Quebec National Assembly also recognize that they have merely identified a problem, not solved one. They reached a compromise. I do not have much to say about the action that the Quebec National Assembly is taking, other than to note that it is very important in a democracy for every vote to carry roughly the same weight.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Conservatives are wasting time and blocking important bills by changing their minds about when we work. I want the House leader to explain why we need to keep working and pass laws for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the minister’s response to the Thursday question, because I think it is important for Canadians who watch the debates to see the games that the Conservatives play on an ongoing basis, whether by obstructing, by wasting time or by sending conflicting messages. A good example of that is what the House leader made reference to. One day, the Conservatives said, “Yes, we want to sit late”, but later the same day, they proposed that we adjourn in the early evening. The following day, there were two adjournment motions on Bill C-16, which is important crime legislation for protecting Canadian victims and making our communities safer. The Conservatives again, and not once but twice, moved adjournment. It seems to me that this is nothing but a game to the Conservatives to try to prevent legislation from passing. Can the House leader provide his thoughts on why it is so important that we deliver for Canadians?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 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 analysis →

“We have many important crime bills to pass to protect children and victims. The opposition has delayed our work all session. They even voted against working longer hours to get things done.”

“Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have a very ambitious agenda. You have been in the chair for much of it. We have a very wide-ranging series of crime bills, including the bill that my hon. friend just mentioned on protecting victims, protecting children and warning against child pornography. These are very important measures. To go back to the question from my friend from Bow River, all this work culminates at the end of a session. Of course the government wants to move forward on things that have been debated, and in fact obstructed, in many creative ways throughout the session. That is what we are doing currently. To have the opposition vote, three hours later, against its very solemn vote to prolong the hours of the House so we could work harder and get more done for Canadians was intriguing, to say the least.”

“The parties have worked together for many hours to improve this elections bill. I expect a strong majority of us will vote for it. Canadians need to see that we can agree on the rules for our elections.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is perhaps unaware of the very constructive, long hours, and Canadians should know that in this place, a lot of work goes on behind the scenes. Sometimes parties do not find it to their interest to let on that they are co-operating with other parties. I would put to the member that in the case of Bill C-25, we have worked very hard, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. I want to commend once again his colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River for his very hard work on this and for his very constructive suggestions. The bill has been the subject of much co-operation and of long committee meetings. Indeed, we will come to, I suspect, a very strong majority of parliamentarians voting for the bill. I think it is very important that Canadians see, at the very minimum, that parliamentarians, the House of Commons, can agree on the rules of the game.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We already voted to keep Quebec at 78 seats. The law allows us to add more seats as the population grows. We will need to debate whether we have enough members of Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we voted during the last Parliament to protect the number of seats in Quebec and keep the number of Quebec electoral ridings at 78. Parliament has therefore taken concrete measures to ensure Quebec’s representation. Unless I am mistaken, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contains a formula that provides for increasing the number of seats after each census and after each redistribution. Obviously, we will need a day to debate whether a sufficient number of parliamentarians has been reached. Seats will then have to be redistributed, but that raises a good question and it will certainly have to be debated.”

“Our voting ridings are divided fairly. Large rural ridings can be hard to represent, but every person's vote should have equal power.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member may know, there is a law in place that establishes the number of seats, how they are distributed and so on. I think he said there are about 115,000 people in his riding, which is about the same number as in my own riding of Gatineau. For the most part, I think that with respect to ridings, other than the constitutional obligations we have at the founding of the country, we have achieved a very good balance and a very good way of dividing constituencies. That, of course, means that Yellowhead is a very large riding because of its vast, beautiful spaces, with people distributed all around the territory. That is, of course, a challenge for anyone who seeks to represent that incredible part of our country, but it is one we need to continue to address by following the Supreme Court’s guidance that, while we should deviate a little bit, one vote in one place should equal what one vote in another place is worth.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I invite Mr. Branchaud to perform at a festival in Gatineau this summer and wish him a happy anniversary. I love music and would be glad to talk about it with the member.”

“Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to invite Mr. Branchaud to come to Gatineau to entertain us at one of our many festivals this summer, including the hot air balloon festival. I want to wish Mr. Branchaud a happy anniversary. I would love to hear him play someday. Music is an essential part of my life. Whether we are talking about Québécois music, francophone music or music in general, I am a big fan of music, and I would be happy to talk about it with the Bloc Québécois whip at some point.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 29 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 analysis →

“We must protect our democracy and keep our public institutions strong. This bill reviews political donations, including cryptocurrency. I want the minister to talk about why it is important to know where political donations come from.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada has one of the strongest democracies in the world, but we can never take that for granted. We need to protect the independence of our judiciary. We need a strong parliamentary system, and we need strong journalism. Obviously we can never take our democracy for granted. We need to strengthen those institutions. I know that one of the measures that struck me as being particularly important in this legislation is reviewing the ways people can make political donations, including the use of crypto. I wonder if the minister wants to speak to the importance of knowing where the money that fuels our democracy comes from.”

“Canada has very strict rules on political donations, and corporations and unions cannot give money directly to candidates. People can use cryptocurrency to break these rules. This bill bans cryptocurrency from being used to fund our elections or candidates.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know that we have one of the most successful and most rigorously managed election contribution systems in the world. It is completely transparent and strictly limited with respect to donation amounts, and it is one that does not permit corporations, unions or others to participate directly in the financing of political parties or of candidates. Cryptocurrency, and its rise, has obviously presented, in the context of those very efficient and well-run systems, as in other areas such as money laundering and the like, ways of getting around the laws. We have taken measures in the bill to make sure that cryptocurrency would play no part in the funding of our political process or of candidates.”

“We worked with other parties to update our election laws based on recommendations from election officials and the inquiry into foreign interference. We are catching up on these changes to keep our elections among the best in the world.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, after every election, the Chief Electoral Officer, the commissioner of Canada elections and, in this instance, the inquiry into foreign interference all presented recommendations, as our election officials do after every election. They present their views. Because of the last Parliament’s minority status, we are actually catching up on the recommendations from the prior election. We are very happy to have worked with our friends across the aisle on those very recommendations to find a consensus on making the fixes, doing the tweaks and making the reforms necessary to make sure our elections administration stays as it currently is: among the finest, most reputed and reputable in the world.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A public inquiry showed that Canadian democracy is strong and voters decide our elections, even though foreign interference happened. This bill adds rules to protect our security and computer systems, and we are open to more ways to protect our elections.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, and I am not claiming we have solved everything, but I can say one thing. We held a public inquiry into foreign interference, and although some instances of interference were identified and named, the commissioner concluded that, on the whole, Canadian democracy is in good shape and that it is Canadians who determine the outcomes of elections. That said, when it comes to digital sovereignty, it is true that we must protect our institutions. This bill contains specific provisions on security and cybersecurity, and we will continue to implement them. Elections Canada has become very effective in this area. I would be happy to continue this discussion with my colleague. We are always ready to explore ways to protect our sovereignty and our institutions through various measures, including legislative ones.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are trying to pass laws to help with costs and criminal justice, but the Conservatives are delaying them. I work with members from all parties to protect trust in our democracy. Elections Canada runs fair elections, and all parties should work together to update election rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are working. In fact, we are trying, in the face of Conservative obstruction, to pass a very sweeping set of criminal justice measures and affordability measures. The Conservatives are filibustering two of them right now, the spring economic statement bill and the lawful access bill, that we are very much hoping to accomplish for Canadians. I do want to suggest that the member’s question might be a little off tone. I have worked very closely with his colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River and parliamentarians from all sides of this House so that we can do just that: ensure trust in our democratic institutions. Elections Canada is the pride of this country. It runs efficient and fair elections. No one ever questions its methods. It suggests many ways, after elections, that we can reform, tweak or change some of the rules. We do that together with all parties, and we agree on the rules of the game. That is the very basis of achieving trust in our democracy.”

“We tried to change our voting system, but Canadians and members of Parliament did not agree on how to do it. Canada has a great democracy, and this bill makes a few updates to improve it.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, but first I want to come back to my colleague’s previous question about music. I want to recommend that he listen to Le Diable à Cinq, a group that has done La Petite Nation proud. This band just released a new album and I would invite my colleague to get a copy and listen to it all summer long. As for the issue of proportional representation or democratic reform, we tried to bring about democratic reform here and it became quite clear that there was a lack of consensus, both among parliamentarians and among Canadians. We have a great democracy. In my opinion, we have one of the best democratic systems in the world. It is not perfect, but that is why we are making a few changes today. We can be proud of our democracy.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 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 analysis →

“Elections Canada runs our elections well. This bill came from everyone working together and listening to experts. Some of the changes will take effect between elections, and I want the member to share his thoughts on that.”

“Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada as an organization is recognized virtually around the world as a first-class institution that does a great service for Canadians in terms of its conduct and the manner in which it administers national elections. It is something that we can all be proud of. The member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River provided his comments on Bill C-25, and in listening to him, I got the sense that, yes, there may be some changes in the future, but the legislation as we see it today has been achieved through consensus, whether through committee discussions or by listening to all the stakeholders, who have ultimately helped put in changes. Some of these changes are going to have impacts that will occur between elections. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on that.”

“We must protect our elections from false information, fake videos, and social media influence. We are working with Elections Canada so Canadians can always vote based on the facts.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is very satisfying to work on ensuring trust in our democratic institutions. We need to remain vigilant. I need not explain all of the reasons why and how society, social media and other things have influenced and impacted our democracy. As many stakeholder groups have pointed out, we need to be watching and on guard for things like misinformation, disinformation and deepfakes, and need to continue to be vigilant so that Canadians can always make an informed choice based on truth and facts. That is our goal. I am sure that is the goal of all members of the House. We are going to continue working through Elections Canada to make sure that fair elections are a defining characteristic of our country.”

“All parties worked together on this election bill. I expect it will pass with a lot of support.”

“Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend did not hear my earlier answer to his colleague when I spoke of the great collaboration. I want to end where I began, by thanking colleagues from all corners of the House of Commons for coming together on this very important bill, which I am sure will get a very important number of votes as we go through third reading.”