MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kelly Block

Follow by RSS

Block presses her private member’s bill, C-255, to raise penalties for mischief against religious property, drop the need to prove hate motivation and make victim compensation mandatory; she also attacks defence procurement that has yet to deliver equipment and the Cúram benefits project that grew from $1.75 billion toward a reported $6.6 billion. She argues by leaping ahead of her evidence, blaming spending and policy for every rise she names, and reaches for a refrain — “here we go again” — to frame whatever is before the House.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
84 / 100 over 25 statements
Signal 75 / 100
Relevance 84 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 90 / 100
Loses points more than most for Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.1.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.6 Loses points less than most for Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 25 of 31 statements graded so far.

Statements 31

Government Orders ·

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

“I oppose this budget bill. It continues wasteful spending that increases our national debt. It also creates a new defence agency that gives a minister unchecked power to skip fair bidding rules with no accountability.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the 330-page budget implementation act, no. 2. All I can say is here we go again. This act, which puts in place measures to implement what was announced in the update, is just more of what we have become accustomed to from the Liberal government. The Liberals keep building bureaucracies and spending at speeds never seen before, faster than the previous Trudeau government. Any fiscal room that was generated by higher-than-expected revenues went immediately out the door. For more than a decade, the Liberals have preached that deficit spending will drive the growth in the economy needed to produce good-paying jobs for Canadians. For a government that is desperately trying to convince Canadians it is different and would achieve the results Canadians have been waiting a decade for, the spring economic update proves very little has changed. Every dollar that comes into the economy is another dollar to subsidize itself. The Liberals have caused the regulatory burden in Canada to balloon and suppress innovation and growth. Inaction is a choice. A perfect example of this is the sections in this bill that create the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity. The powers it is granting to an unnamed minister are broad and sweeping. The exceptions to competitive procurements are vast and can be used as much as the unknown minister chooses. Exceptions are likely to become the norm. No one would argue that defence procurement has been in major need of reform. Onerous rules and layers of bureaucratic processes have only grown. The pace that meets the operational needs of the Canadian Armed Forces has been sorely needed. One could expect that over the 11 years the Liberals have been in power, they would have worked to overhaul and reform the systems and rules around procurement. One could expect it, but they would be wrong. The Liberals’ solution to the bureaucratic bloat seems to be the exact same as it was a year ago. It was in Bill C-5 this time last year that the Liberals claimed they needed extraordinary powers to bypass regulations and roadblocks that got in the way of major projects. They have yet to use any of those powers to designate a project in the national interest to advance our resource development. I do not bring up Bill C-5 to talk about the lack of results from the government on resource development; there are more than enough examples to talk about this elsewhere. I bring it up because it was originally drafted in such a way that would have allowed the government to bypass not only certain acts of Parliament to build projects, but virtually any act of Parliament. Allow me to list a few of the acts it sought the ability to bypass before it was amended at committee: the Access to Information Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act and the Lobbying Act just to name a few. The only reason this was prevented at the time was because of the minority government that Canadians had elected. A year later, now we have the same story. Procurement has become slow, costly and unable to deliver the lethality and operational readiness our armed forces need. To give members an idea of the state of operational readiness in our armed forces, we can use the Department of National Defence’s own annual results from 2024-25. Less than 60% of our maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. Only 51% of our land fleets are sitting at the ready and well maintained so troops can use them. Only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to serve and have the proper maintenance. That is years of waiting for the government to deliver while rules and processes grew without any reform. The solution, according to the Liberals, is not to bring about reform or transformation, but rather to grant an unknown minister near-unlimited power to bypass competitive procurement rules. He or she would be able to bar anyone from being allowed to compete without ever having to provide a reason why. This unknown minister can draw $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, without ever needing to go to the Treasury Board to purchase shares in companies, and fire entire boards. They can use exceptions to competitive procurements to no end, never having to justify or report it to anyone. These powers can be delegated to the CEO, undermining the entire point having a single place for accountability. A year ago, we had Bill C-5, and the same story, the same solution was presented. In this case, however, the Liberals are seeking the ability to just go around the rules without ever having to explain why to anyone. This is rife for abuse. If power is to be given, the case must be made for how it will be balanced with accountability. This budget implementation act allows the same failed thinking that got us here: no case for reform and no change in approach. As I said, inaction is a choice. Proud Canadians in my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek were looking for a signal that something better was on the way. Instead, they see that the Liberals under this Prime Minister have not changed their approach at all. Deficit spending still has not produced the results the Liberals have been promising. The interest on our debt will total more than $50 billion. Nobody on that side of the aisle seems to be interested in what we could do with our economy with that $50 billion every year. These interest charges will continue to rise and total more than a projected $80 billion by 2030‑31, with no course correction in sight. Instead, the Liberals continue to announce even new ways to deficit spend: enter the sovereign debt fund. We recently learned that the estimated interest payments to borrow the money for this fund will be three-quarters of a billion dollars annually. They have yet to even tell Canadians what the return on their money might be. Canadians have been waiting. They continue to pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have kept their end of the deal. Saskatchewan and Saskatchewanians have kept their end of the deal. In return, the government is supposed to deliver on the results it promised Canadians. It is avoiding real change. Instead, after more than a year since the previous election, it has opted to tinker with the margins or make small changes around the edges, and it has not been willing to change the approach it has taken to our economy. Its spending and its Defence Investment Agency all follow the same failed logic of the previous 10 years. Simply allowing the Liberals to have more power and more authority to avoid the bureaucracy they created and accountability is not the solution. Conservatives will wait to see who will be named as minister, and whether the Liberals will use their manufactured majority to continue a pattern of avoiding accountability at committee when this bill is referred to it.

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“The Liberals claim to be different, but they are still spending too much and shutting down debate. They should serve Canadians instead of themselves.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, Liberal members stand across the way and try to convince Canadians that they are a new government. Canadians need to look no further than the government’s actions today to confirm that they are the same old government, spending more and limiting debate with time allocation. When will this minister and the Liberal government realize they are here to serve Canadians, not themselves?

Private Members' Business ·

Points of Order

“We want to speak on this point of order later.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like to reserve the right to speak to this very important point of order at a later date.

Adjournment Proceedings ·

Adjournment Proceedings

In response to a question from Karim Bardeesy

“The Liberals mismanaged a new government computer system. It delayed benefits for 85,000 seniors and cost an extra $5 billion. The Liberals are wasting money on consultants while projects fail, and everyday Canadians are stuck paying for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General did find we needed a new system. That much is true. However, she did not advise the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that 85,000 seniors could not get their benefits in a timely way. The Auditor General certainly did not tell the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that it cost an extra $5 billion. The Liberals want to pretend these failures of Cúram are not their fault. Cúram is yet another example of how Liberal overspending and underdelivering affects everyday Canadians. There is always someone else at fault, and no one is held to account. The pattern is clear, and Canadians see it. Under the Liberals, connected, costly consultants get paid while projects fall further and further behind, running over budget by the billions, and Canadians are left paying the bill.

“The government's new software project to modernize pensions is billions of dollars over budget and delayed. Tens of thousands of seniors are having trouble getting their benefits because of it. I want the minister to explain why this project costs so much and why seniors are paying the price for these mistakes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government’s Cúram software platform has become the newest IT project to make the list of over-budget, chronically delayed programs it delivers to Canadians. The program was launched in 2017, just two years after the Liberals took office. The Auditor General found that, by 2022, the program had run into delays and into cost overruns that increased by 43% before a single benefit had been processed by the system. Reports from Le Journal de Montréal estimate that the once $1.75‑billion IT project meant to modernize old age security payments will cost up to $6.6 billion. I wish I could say that this project was the first of its kind. Unfortunately it is the latest in the long list of Liberal-managed IT projects where costs ballooned, and connected consultants got paid. Members of the House voted to launch an independent inquiry into these projects, such as Phoenix, the arrive scam scandal and now Cúram, to find out how the same pattern of delay is followed by cost overruns and by a big bill for taxpayers to pay, while the people overseeing the projects are not held accountable, and why the middlemen involved walk away, getting paid every time. During the arrive scam scandal, connected consultants working out of a basement apartment took millions of dollars without performing any work. They engineered a bid to build the ArriveCAN app, and they contracted out all the work to others while pocketing the difference. The project was originally projected to cost just $80,000 but ended up costing $64.5 million. The connected insiders kept millions of dollars, and Canadians were left footing the bill for an app that the Auditor General found did not provide value for money. Cúram may not simply cost upwards of $6 billion. Reports from March indicate that tens of thousands of seniors were having issues with their benefits, and delays had reached up to 85,000 people. Members of the Liberal government stood up in the House, after taking questions, and first denied anything was wrong, but then they told members to reach out personally and to not make the issue political. Since when has question period, a time when opposition members ensure accountability by asking questions of the government, become a time when the Liberals continually demonstrate arrogance by suggesting that by pointing out that the Liberals failed to deliver the Cúram program on time or on budget, or that nearly 85,000 seniors could not access their benefits, political opponents are playing politics? That attitude is beneath members of this place. I will ask the minister the question again: Why do Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for the Liberals’ incompetence?

Government Orders ·

Strong and Free Elections Act

In response to a question from Scott Anderson

“Current election laws have loopholes that let groups put dozens of protest candidates on the ballot. All parties agree this is a problem, and we want to change the law to stop it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs produced a report on the longest ballot issue, and that it was unanimously supported by all parties. What I believe has been noted is that there are loopholes in the current legislation that allow for activities like those of the longest ballot committee to continue, just as it is legal for individuals to cross the floor in the House of Commons. So far this committee has been able to do what it is doing, but we are seeking to end that.

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I disagree with the member. Political parties should be funded by donations from Canadians who support them, not just by public money based on votes. The current limits on federal donations are right because they encourage people to get involved.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with my hon. colleague on the efficacy of that suggestion. It is important that political parties are subsidized not simply by a few votes they receive but by the voluntary contributions of Canadians who believe in what a political party represents and hopes to achieve. I know that, provincially, individuals can donate much more to candidates, and so can corporations and businesses. I believe that the threshold that has been set federally is appropriate and encourages people to stay engaged in politics and support the candidates they would like to have elected to the House.

In response to a question from Tom Osborne

“I agree with my colleague. The higher fines in this bill are big, and they show that we take breaking election rules seriously. The committee should decide if they need to look at these fines more closely.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 23 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the explanation that my hon. colleague has provided, and I would agree with that explanation. I do believe that the proposed increases are significant, and I think they demonstrate the seriousness with which both the committee and the drafters of the legislation take the monetary penalties that would be applied in cases where these fines are appropriate. I will leave it to the committee to determine whether this is something that needs further scrutiny.

“I support sending this election bill to committee for study. It stops groups from putting dozens of fake candidates on the ballot, and it bans hard-to-trace money like cryptocurrency. But the committee still needs to look at rules allowing foreign money in third-party groups, and the large new fines and powers given to election officials.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This is a complex, technical piece of legislation, but its core objective is one we should all support: protecting the integrity of our democratic process. Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River for his thoughtful remarks on this bill and for the very good work he does on democratic reform. While the Conservative caucus supports moving this bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a detailed study, there are specific areas regarding foreign interference and new enforcement powers that I believe require further scrutiny. The bill focuses on three central themes. The first is bringing in changes to prevent further abuses of our democratic processes by the longest ballot committee. I know we have heard a lot about this issue during this debate. Over the course of many years now, members of the House, prospective candidates and Canadians have been subjected to a coordinated effort by a group that calls itself the longest ballot committee, whose members have sought to exploit our electoral process. They target specific ridings and flood the ballot with dozens of fake candidates, candidates who have no intention of campaigning, engaging with voters or putting forward solutions and policy proposals to run on. This undermines the trust Canadians have in our election systems. The expectation of residents in the riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek from Humboldt, Warman and Martensville to Radisson, just to name a few, is that as a candidate I run under a set of policies that I am committing to represent, and I put forward a vision of what I plan to achieve in Ottawa and how I plan to represent the voices of my riding here in this place. The longest ballot committee is the exact opposite of this. To call it a protest is to misrepresent the way it undermines trust in our elections. A recent and prominent example was in the riding of Carleton, where we saw a metre-long ballot with 91 fake candidates. This creates voter confusion, marginalizes legitimate candidates and creates unnecessary barriers for voters with certain disabilities. As of now, groups can use the same 100 signatures to qualify multiple candidates. This is a clear abuse of the spirit of the act. Bill C-25 rightly proposes that an elector may only sign one nomination form and that an official agent may only act for one candidate per riding. This would help put an end to this sham of the electoral process by the longest ballot group. The second part of this bill proposes changes to close foreign funding loopholes. Central to our democracy is the idea and trust that Canadian elections should be and are decided by Canadians. Currently, significant loopholes allow foreign interests to influence our outcomes through third parties. If foreign money is sent for a general purpose rather than a specific regulated activity, it can be treated as general revenue and used for campaigning. This allows third parties to potentially be significantly funded by foreign money in practice. That process is the melding of funds. These new rules that would prohibit cryptocurrency, prepaid cards and money orders as contribution methods would extend to leadership contests as well. These changes to prevent anonymous and hard-to-trace funding channels are welcome. As has been noted, with the instance of the 2017 Tides Foundation case, where foreign funds were funnelled through Canadian intermediaries to mask their original source, those entities ended up campaigning against then prime minister Stephen Harper in the 2015 election. That is an intermediary loophole that exists, where foreign funding is dispersed to legitimate Canadian companies and then transferred to third party groups and the funds do not appear to be from foreign entities. This bill would require third parties to use separate bank accounts funded only by Canadians or permanent residents. However, there would be a 10% “own funds” exception that may still leave the door open for foreign influence. That is why Conservatives are urging the government to consider an amendment requiring all third parties, regardless of size, to use separate Canadian-only accounts to ensure a level playing field with political parties. The third part of the bill I will be focusing on is the proposed changes in powers to the commissioner of Elections Canada and new monetary penalties. It is these proposed changes that may require greater scrutiny, which would be done in the House through each stage of debate, and then during the review process at committee. The bill is proposing to increase monetary penalties for individuals from $1,500 to $25,000, and for corporations from $5,000 to $100,000. These are not small increases. Further investigation will be needed, given that the commissioner would have extraordinary powers to apply these fines, to see if it would be more appropriate to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions and to proceed by way of criminal prosecution. Some of the proposed penalties are for spreading election misinformation. Conservatives will do our part to ensure that the legislation reflects the intent and that it would not penalize or have a chilling effect on having debate and conversations about elections. There are also greater powers being proposed for the commissioner of Elections Canada, in that they would no longer need judicial authorization to compel evidence in all circumstances. We will need to ensure that this is charter compliant. These are examples of where Conservatives believe the bill requires further scrutiny, and I do hope this demonstrates that we are willing to come to the table and find solutions to the problems facing our electoral system. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled its report, and while some of its recommendations are being put forward in Bill C-25, some are not. The report was unanimous. Conservatives hope the government will be amenable to reconsidering the amendments that reflect the unanimous recommendations made by the committee. Election interference is real, and it is important that we work to close the loopholes and combat foreign influence in our elections. We are all familiar with what happened in 2019 in the riding of Don Valley North, where the Liberal nomination became an entryway for foreign interference in our elections process. A Beijing consulate coordinated support for a candidate who would go on to win the nomination and become a member of the House. Instances like the one in Don Valley North are a warning to every member of the House that foreign interference in our elections must be fought at every stage, including nominations. I know that there is much to consider in the bill, and in the short time I have had, I have not covered everything. Bill C-25 is a technical bill, as I mentioned earlier, and it includes numerous measures that are meant to close loopholes in the current legislation. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the report and for the fact that it was unanimously agreed to. Conservatives broadly support the measures contained in the bill that would safeguard democracy and ensure the integrity of our elections, and we will closely review individual measures at committee.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The government's spending has doubled the cost of housing and rent, making life unaffordable for Canadians. When will the government stop spending so much money?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after running a decade of deficits, the Liberals have doubled the cost of housing, doubled the cost of rent and now doubled the deficit from Justin Trudeau. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians who are struggling to afford groceries, pay their rent and fill up their tanks with gas. When will the Liberals finally admit they have gotten it wrong, change course and get their spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again?

“The government is spending too much money. We now spend more on debt interest than on health care, costing each family $3,300 a year. What will the government tell Canadians in its next money update?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have made grand promises of spending less and investing more, yet we heard from Finance Canada that their savings plan was not about spending less at all. With net new spending at $90 billion and interest on our nation’s debt totalling more than we spend on health care transfers, Canadians are footing the bill in the amount of $3,300 a year per family. What are the Liberals going to tell Canadians next week when they release their fiscal update? Will it doom Canadians to more of the same?