Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, which is seconded by the leader of the official opposition: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief), be disposed of as follows: (a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage on Tuesday, September 22, 2026; (b) on Tuesday, September 22, 2026, the House shall continue to sit until midnight for the purpose of considering this bill, provided that, after 7 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, and when no member wishes to speak or at midnight, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance; (c) the Minister of Finance and National Revenue be ordered to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to the bill for one hour, no later than Tuesday, October 6, 2026, followed by an additional hour to gather evidence from witnesses, and immediately after, the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; (d) the motion for third reading of the bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage; (e) at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day the bill is considered at the third reading stage, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the bill shall be deemed read a third time and passed on division.

Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30, where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way. Could the minister talk about the fact that while opposition members continue to say we are stopping debate, they are talking about elephants in a debate about money that needs to go out for the construction of housing?

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has been at the municipal level before, and we know that we cannot build homes without cities and without partnerships with the provinces and municipalities. My city of London has been a great example of how those partnerships have yielded a lot of funding from the housing accelerator fund, yet we have seen the opposition take jabs at mayors. Can you talk about the importance of partnerships with mayors and provinces to make sure that we can build the homes that are needed across Canada fast?

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech. Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill? I would also like to hear him speak about the collaboration that made it possible to move this bill forward in a very short time.

Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague who sits on committee with me said he feels we are not listening. I talked about the fact that we did extensive collaboration. This is one of the most fast-tracked bills that I personally have witnessed since I have been a member of Parliament, because of the expert input we brought on and the collaboration that happened between all parties in the House. Can the member comment on what exactly in this bill the Conservatives cannot support and what they can support?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have obtained the unanimous consent of the House to share my time. I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C‑25, the strong and free elections act. Bill C‑25 makes changes to the Canada Elections Act that will improve the strength and resilience of Canada's electoral system. As we all know, one of the pillars of our democracy is our electoral system, and the Canada Elections Act is the foundation of that system. The act is already recognized around the world for its rigorous administrative procedures, robust political financing regime and strict spending limits. However, we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to the growing threats to elections that aim to undermine trust in our democratic electoral processes. Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time. Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from persistent threats, regardless of the circumstances. That is why, in keeping with this long-standing tradition of continually improving the Canada Elections Act, our government is proposing priority amendments to address these threats. It is essential that we draw on the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on the recommendations that were made during the public inquiry into foreign interference, as well as those that were made by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections. Bill C-25 proposes to further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through several new measures. Allow me to elaborate a bit on those. As I mentioned at the outset, interference in elections can occur at any point, and it is not just in elections. Bill C-25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, it would expand the prohibitions regarding undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications that claim to come from someone that they are not, and broadcasting outside Canada with the intent to unduly influence voters to apply at any time, not just during the election period. This protection would also be applied to nomination and leadership contests. In addition, Bill C-25 extends the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that bad actors operating outside Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for their illegal acts. Bill C‑25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and covert money from entering our democratic system. This includes prohibiting the use of contributions in the form of cryptoassets and prepaid money orders for all activities conducted by political actors or for regulated activities conducted by third parties. It is important to note that under Bill C‑25, third parties will only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. However, we understand, as we have heard at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, that not all third parties receive contributions and that some may wish to use their own revenues to cover regulated expenses. In this case, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual funds will be able to use their own funds to finance regulated activities. These amendments will strengthen transparency regarding the source of funds and will mitigate the risk of foreign and covert funds interfering in our elections, without depriving third parties acting in good faith of the ability to exercise their right to participate in the democratic process. The next point I want to highlight this evening is how Bill C-25 tackles the problem of disinformation. Disinformation is a key tactic aimed at stoking division and eroding public trust in all of our democratic processes. Disinformation always seeks to manipulate voters through false information that is deliberately disseminated, often online. The amendments proposed in Bill C-25 would strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. More specifically, the bill would prohibit the deliberate dissemination of false information regarding an election or the electoral process with the intent to interfere with the conduct or results of an election, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy. Another source of misinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 would also be addressing. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries several risks. For example, content generated by artificial intelligence has become increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI such as deepfakes can pose significant threats. To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 would amend the prohibition on impersonation to cover video and audio manipulation, such as deepfakes, and extend its application to nomination and leadership candidates, who are also vulnerable to such threats. When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see a ballot that lists the candidates who have a legitimate desire to stand for election and to represent their constituents if elected. That is a fundamental principle of our system of government. However, this is not the case in ridings targeted by those seeking to create excessively long ballots. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of people who have neither the desire nor the intention to ever represent the voters' interests. Not only do these long ballots pose significant accessibility issues for voters and election officials, particularly those with disabilities, but they can also delay vote counting. That is what we heard during the study on unduly long ballots conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am therefore pleased to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 is fully in line with all of the committee's legislative recommendations. I would add that this is one of the most robust and collaborative processes I have seen to date. At a time when security is a growing concern within our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new safeguards. For example, the home addresses of returning officers will no longer be made public; candidates will receive higher reimbursements for their personal security expenses; and the rules governing regulated fundraising activities will be amended. The last part of the bill I would like to highlight concerns the important mandate of the independent commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-25 will strengthen the tools available to the commissioner to fulfill this mandate. In closing, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, would further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through targeted, priority amendments that were recommended by experts and would ensure that our legislative framework remains resilient in a consistently evolving threat environment. I urge my colleagues and all members of the House to support this really important bill.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague sits on the committee with me. We have had this conversation extensively. We agree that the 10% in the bill would actually prevent foreign money from going into our elections. The reporting measures in this bill have been recommended by experts. We believe these are strong measures to make sure we can keep track of where foreign money is coming from and to make sure Canadians understand where funds are coming from that go into our elections.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. She took part in a number of discussions with experts and witnesses that highlighted the importance of protecting our elections. As I mentioned earlier, we are following the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and other experts. The world is changing. We know that we already have a robust system, but we have to keep putting security measures in place to protect our elections and maintain Canadians' trust in our institutions.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, Canadians are not slow. They understand that transitions are tough. They understand the kinds of situations we have been in in the last couple of years, whether they were because of COVID or the unjustified tariffs that Canadians have experienced across the board. I am curious to know what the member opposite thinks Canadians think of him and his party when they see him get excited about Canadians not doing well.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I joined members of our London community for the annual remembering “our London family” vigil and march, marking the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack that took the lives of Salman, Madiha, Yumnah and Talat Afzaal because they were Muslim. I also had the privilege of spending time with members of the Afzaal family, whose courage and resilience continue to inspire all of us across our city. I would like to thank the Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia for organizing this important commemoration and for its continued advocacy to build a more inclusive and compassionate world. I also want to thank my colleagues who joined me in London for this event. As we reflect on the legacy of the Afzaal family, let us recommit ourselves to confronting Islamophobia, rejecting hatred in all its forms and building a Canada where everyone can live safely and with dignity. The Afzaal family will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on building a stronger Canadian economy while ensuring that Canadian businesses remain competitive. We recognize the challenges that are faced across the country by manufacturers, and we have been taking action to support our businesses and manufacturing companies across the country. Unlike the opposition, we believe that growing an economy and reducing emissions can and must go hand in hand. We will continue to work with industries, provinces and workers to ensure that Canada remains competitive, while advancing our economy and our environmental objectives as well. On that note, this afternoon we will continue to debate Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act. Tomorrow and then Tuesday of next week, we will call Bill C‑20, the build Canada homes act, at report stage and third reading. I also wish to inform the House that Monday will be the final allotted day in this financial cycle. On Wednesday, we will begin studying the Senate amendments to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. On Thursday, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C‑26, which seeks to improve housing supply.

Mr. Speaker, May was Prader-Willi Syndrome Awareness Month, a time to recognize individuals and families across Canada living with the rare genetic disorder that requires lifelong medical, behavioural and social support. Last Wednesday, families from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill for FPWR Canada's first day on the Hill, raising awareness and advocating for stronger support, timely access to therapies and more inclusive policies for Canadians living with rare diseases. This cause is especially meaningful to me, because one of those remarkable children is Olivier, my very own nephew. Like so many families, ours has witnessed both the incredible resilience of individuals living with Prader-Willi syndrome and the daily challenges they face. These families are not asking for sympathy; they are asking for equity, dignity and the opportunity for loved ones to live full lives. I want to thank FPWR Canada and the families, caregivers, researchers and advocates who continue to push for progress and bring hope for rare disease communities across Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to hear the comments that are being made in the House. I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to talk to regional mayors in southwestern Ontario and other leaders in our community who are seized with our economic development and the things that we need to do to continue to grow our region. The one answer that we have heard is that the government is responding fast, given the challenges that we are already facing. Maybe the minister can comment on the fact that we are in a situation we have never been in before. We need to move fast, and we need to work with everyone, including Parliament of course. Why are the Conservatives so stuck on continuing to drag on debate when people are asking us to move fast so our economy can continue to grow? The mayors of southwestern Ontario are asking for us to move with speed. Can the minister comment on that?

Mr. Speaker, it is very surprising to hear that the Conservative Party still uses Justin Trudeau as its only plan to try to get into the hearts of Canadians. Unfortunately, in April 2025, Canadians elected a new government to do the business of the people of Canada. On that note, I want to take the opportunity to wish my friend and colleague the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie a great time as he takes the next step in his life. I thank him for the amazing work he has done for this country on environment and climate change. I also thank him for his contribution to this caucus and to this Parliament as a minister, as a member of Parliament and as a great friend and colleague to all of us. This evening we will have debate in committee of the whole on the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Tomorrow and Monday, we will continue second reading debate on Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. I also wish to inform the House that Tuesday will be an allotted day. Finally, on Wednesday and Thursday, we will move on to the third reading report stage of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to extend a warm welcome to my colleague for her maiden speech in the House. On that note, I want to ask my colleague what she thinks about the fact that the opposition really is pushing a motion to try to overstep culture and protection of culture for our communities here in Canada, especially for francophone communities. Can my colleague comment on why it is important that we oppose this motion?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible contributions of the Ukrainian community in London, Ontario, and in particular the Ukrainian Centre and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress of London. As we mark Vyshyvanka Day, a celebration of heritage, resilience and identity, we honour not only tradition but action. In London, Ukrainian Canadians have opened their doors, organized support networks and welcomed families fleeing war with compassion and dignity. They have raised funds, sent humanitarian aid and stood firmly with Ukraine in its fight for freedom. Their work strengthens our community here at home while making a difference abroad. I thank all those involved, all of our friends, Daria and many more, for showing us what solidarity truly looks like. I want to wish them all a happy celebration on Vyshyvanka Day.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of utilizing our time correctly, in talking about the importance of Bill S-228, I want to build on what my colleague was talking about: the importance of making sure that women across Canada have the opportunity to be consulted when they need to make decisions about family planning. Obviously, this issue has affected women in Canada, indigenous women disproportionately, and Black women. I want to take this opportunity to talk about the fact that tomorrow is Red Dress Day, an important day for indigenous women, when we remember the missing and murdered indigenous women across Canada. This is an opportunity for everyone in Canada to be aware of the issues that disproportionately affect indigenous women—

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Conservatives' position on anything that supports Canadians moving forward and Canadians having opportunities to grow our wealth and to grow our economy. Unless it is their idea, they are against it. Listening to them talk, it is almost like they are against Canada. They are talking about unlocking opportunities for Canadians, yet they constantly vote against Canadians. Can my hon. colleague tell me why they continue to vote against Canada?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on Wednesday, May 27, 2026, the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole in order to welcome Canada's 2026 Milano Cortina Olympic and Paralympic Games athletes, provided that: (a) the Speaker make welcoming remarks on behalf of the House; (b) the names of the athletes present be deemed read and printed in the House of Commons Debates for that day; (c) when the proceedings of the committee have concluded, the committee shall rise; and (d) only authorized photographers be permitted to take photos during the proceedings of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just made a great speech. We care about young people and young people getting jobs, which is why he talked about it. The minister of jobs announced that there will be some jobs for young people in many ridings across the country. Obviously, this morning we were to talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was supposed to be accepted by and voted on in this House, as the government House leader announced yesterday. Can the member talk about young people's jobs in his riding and the importance of having the budget officer's appointment adopted by the House?

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a member from each recognized opposition party, a member of the New Democratic Party and the member of the Green Party may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the minister's statement, and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments; and after each member has replied, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that our dear friend and colleague on the other side misses preaching at church. I almost enjoyed that and forgot that he was talking about not consulting. This is actually the essence of the motion. He talked about our indigenous friends across Canada, and he talked about Harper. Harper did not consult indigenous communities when he made those cuts. We are providing the opportunity to consult Canadians. As lovely as it was to listen to him talk, I think the member fails to answer the question of why we are consulting indigenous communities across Canada. Can the member talk about that? Why would he take that away from indigenous communities that are actually asking to be consulted to make sure that this happens?

Mr. Speaker, as we approach World Immunization Week, observed from April 24 to 30, I rise to highlight the vital importance of routine immunization, both here in Canada and around the world. Vaccines remain one of the most effective tools we have to protect children under the age of five from preventable and life-threatening diseases. Thanks to global immunization efforts, millions of lives have been saved and we are closer than ever to eradicating polio, a disease that once caused widespread paralysis and death. However, at a time when global health systems are under strain and international aid is declining, continued leadership and commitment are more important than ever. In London West and across Canada, we know that strong communities are built on healthy foundations. Supporting immunization means investing in a safer and healthier future for children. I encourage all members of this House to recognize World Immunization Week and reaffirm our shared commitment to protecting the health of children everywhere around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order respecting six amendments that were adopted in committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act that would amend the National Defence Act and other acts. In late January and early February of this year, the Standing Committee on National Defence conducted clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11. During the course of clause-by-clause consideration, six amendments were proposed that the chair of the committee ruled inadmissible on the grounds that these amendments either exceeded the scope and principle of the bill, as decided at second reading, or infringed on the parent act rule. In each of these cases, the ruling of the chair was challenged and overturned, and each of these amendments was adopted by a majority of members. On February 9, Bill C-11 was reported to the House with amendments. Now that the bill is before the House, I am rising to challenge the admissibility of the six amendments that were ruled inadmissible in committee and that are now contained in the bill. The six amendments are CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3. CPC-1 would amend section 10 of the National Defence Act, which was not subject of the content of Bill C-11. In this case, the chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.75 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, CPC-1 proposed to amend a section of the act that is not before the committee and that the bill did not seek to modify the appointment process of the judge advocate general. Therefore, the chair ruled the amendment was inadmissible on the grounds that it exceeded the scope and principle of the bill. CPC-10 would have extended the appointment of a victim's liaison officer to assist a victim to the accused. The chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.74 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the amendment proposed a new concept that went beyond the scope of the bill. BQ-3 would have expanded the class of persons who are eligible to be appointed as a military judge. The chair ruled that this concept proposed in BQ-3 went beyond the scope of the bill. CPC-16 would require the chief military judge to be appointed within 90 days of the position's vacancy, and since Bill C-11 would not modify the appointment process of the chief military judge, this amendment seeks to exceed the scope of the bill. The chair ruled that, while the bill would not modify the appointment process of specific positions, the position of chief military judge was not included and therefore the amendment exceeded the scope of the bill. NDP-4 seeks to ensure that every person involved in the investigation or prosecution has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. The chair ruled that this amendment proposed a new concept that exceeded the scope and principle of the bill. BQ-2 would have required the establishment of an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces, which would not only exceed the scope and principle of the bill but could also infringe on the Crown's financial initiative. The chair ruled that the establishment of a new inspector general was a new concept beyond the scope of this particular bill. I submit that the committee, in adopting these six amendments, exceeded the scope of the bill or infringed on the parent act rule. A bill that is referred to a committee after second reading may not exceed the scope and principle of the bill fixed at second reading and would obviate the ability to amend sections of the parent act that are not opened in the bill. Page 649 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.74, sets the limitation of amendments moved in committee to a bill that is adopted after second reading. This limitation, which deals with the scope and principle of the bill, reads, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” Page 649 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at section 16.75, provides that an amendment to a bill must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause under consideration. In respect to the parent act rule, section 16.75 states, “In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is generally inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent act”. In light of the foregoing, I would request that the Speaker review the bill as amended and make a determination if the amendments proposed through CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4, and BQ-3 either infringe on the parent act rule or exceed the scope and principle of Bill C-11. Should this be the case, I would request that the Speaker order that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House's consideration at report stage.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie. It is my honour to rise today to speak on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, specifically about the bill's timely and comprehensive amendments to address unduly long ballots. I want to echo what my colleagues have been saying in the House, specifically the government House leader and our colleagues from opposition. This was collaboration amongst parties. I have the privilege of sitting on the committee that will receive this bill and continue to work, in good faith, on the amendments that come forward. Hopefully in that same good faith, we will see this bill pass quickly to address the many concerns that we have heard from Canadians. Canada's democracy is among the strongest and most stable in the world. At the heart of this vibrant democracy are free, fair and accessible elections. Accessible elections reflect a core Canadian value that all Canadians will be able to cast their ballot without facing undue challenges. In recent years, however, the accessibility of federal elections has been challenged by the actions of those coordinated movements known for registering a large number of independent candidates who are not running to serve as members of Parliament. Rather, they are choosing this method as a means of protesting Canada's electoral system and the ways in which our electoral laws are made. Since 2019 this group has targeted three general elections and six by-elections, including the most recent by-election in Terrebonne. During the 45th general election in 2025, the number of candidates included on the ballot in the electoral district of Carleton reached 91, most of whom received fewer than 10 votes. This resulted in a ballot that was close to one metre in length. In Terrebonne, some candidates on the ballot received zero votes. The August 2025 by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot, Alberta featured 214 candidates, 201 of whom were affiliated with the longest ballot movement and shared the same official agents. In October 2025, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC, undertook a study that looked at the issue of long ballots. The committee presented its report to Parliament in March of this year, and all of its recommendations are contained in Bill C-25. It is important to point out that the protest movement did not affect our election results, which shows just how strong, robust and secure our electoral system really is. However, the group's actions did make the administration of the election a lot more confusing and complicated. They also caused accessibility issues for voters and election workers, particularly those with disabilities. In the elections preceding the 45th general election in 2025, the ballots in the ridings targeted by the group were much longer because of the large number of candidates. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we heard that the long ballots posed major problems for many voters, particularly those with disabilities. For example, voters with dexterity and mobility issues indicated that it was very difficult for them to handle and mark their ballots, whereas blind voters were unable to use the new assistive voting technology. Research conducted by Elections Canada shows that 71% of voters who had difficulty filling out their ballots attributed this to a candidate list that was too long or to difficulty locating a candidate on the list, while 13% mentioned that the ballot was too long to handle or difficult to fold. In addition to voters, election workers reported significant challenges associated with long ballots. The ballot boxes used to transport ballots are much heavier and harder to carry, vote counting becomes more complex, and reporting is often delayed. The time has come to put an end to this confusion and the complication of the accessibility challenges created by the actions of the longest ballot committee. I also want to highlight that the main concern we heard from our witnesses on this study was around the fact that people want to see better processes when it comes to elections. There are other ways to work through that system to make sure that we have more accessible elections for Canadians and that there are different ways of participating and doing our civic duty rather than obstructing and causing this issue that has affected voters who live with a handicap. I am personally pleased that Bill C-25 would do exactly that, through a series of targeted amendments to the Canada Elections Act, the fundamental framework that governs all aspects of federal elections in Canada. Firstly, as suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer, Bill C-25 would limit voters to signing only one candidate nomination paper per election, recognizing that, to date, candidates associated with unduly long ballots often obtain the required number of signatures by having the same person sign multiple nomination forms. Not only would this mitigate the issue of long ballots, but it would also reinforce the original intention behind the Canada Elections Act's signature requirement, which is to demonstrate sufficient local support for a specific individual's candidacy. However, also aligned with the Chief Electoral Officer's expert recommendation, the nomination of candidates would not be refused if an elector signs more than one candidate nomination paper. This is because candidates who are not affiliated with a coordinated protest movement are unlikely to have knowledge of or control over whether an elector has already signed another candidate's nomination form. For individuals who contravene the new signature requirements, the commissioner of Canada elections, the independent agent who is responsible for enforcing the Canada Elections Act, would have a number of tools at her disposal to encourage compliance with the act depending on the unique circumstances and contravention. This would include information letters, warning letters, and depending on the severity of the infraction, administrative monetary penalties. Secondly, this bill would limit official agents who are responsible for managing campaign finances and reporting all financial activities to Elections Canada to working for one candidate per electoral district per election. This step would recognize the important and substantial role that official agents play and their responsibility toward the candidate they represent. To ensure compliance with this, it is already the case under the Canada Elections Act that individuals who serve as an official agent when ineligible to do so may face consequences, including warning letters or administrative monetary penalties, and up to more significant fines or even jail time. Bill C-25 also includes a number of other measures that would protect the integrity of Elections Canada in addressing long ballots. For example, Bill C-25 includes measures that would ensure that the commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for enforcing our Canada Elections Act, could hold individuals to account who encourage or incite others to sign multiple nomination forms, and to prohibit false information in candidate nomination papers. Taken together, these measures would help address long ballots, protect election administration, accessibility and integrity, and ensure that when voters head to the polls, they are presented with genuine lists of candidates who legitimately want to serve the interests of Canadians. In closing, as I said earlier, the federal election process includes many measures to protect our electoral system and keep it strong, including measures governing the secrecy of the vote count, the security of the vote count and the sharing of the results. Although the long ballots did not affect the results of the election, they still created considerable challenges for candidates. Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, will address those issues and strengthen the integrity of both the candidate nomination process and the electoral process as a whole. Obviously, this is something we studied. We had many discussions, and witnesses spoke on it. I am glad to see we are finally putting forward a bill that would make sure that our elections and voters' integrity continue to be protected. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues on this.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he must have missed the first part of my speech. I talked about how this is part of the measures in Bill C-25. It is one of the issues we have been addressing after bringing this to committee. We did a study on the long ballots. We had witnesses, particularly those who participated in long ballots. We understand that Canadians want to express their views on how our electoral system should go, but we also understand there are rules around that. We are putting in new measures to ensure that long ballots can no longer continue. An official agent, for example, can sign up only one person at a time. We are also increasing the numbers of signatories that they need in order to submit a candidate. We want to make sure that candidates who are on a ballot actually have a genuine intention to present the views of Canadians as a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House leader for the Bloc Québécois raised this issue earlier. As we said, this bill was developed by consensus after a lot of hard work from all the political parties. Some amendments have been proposed. I therefore believe that this bill can be passed in the House as soon as possible so that it can be referred to committee for further study and discussion to see what we can do.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the name of his riding. I believe some other members might disagree with his comment. As I said earlier, one of the goals of the many changes we hope to make through this bill is to strengthen voter protections. As we have noted, Canada's elections are among the most robust and respected in the world. Long ballots have had an impact on Canadians and on the administration of our elections. We saw this just recently in Terrebonne. The goal is therefore to ensure that we can find other ways to allow Canadians to have their say through their votes, rather than creating obstacles in the electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the collaboration that we have had on the committee to move this bill forward, which will continue as this bill goes back to our committee. Obviously, a key piece of this bill is to make sure that people who give misleading and false information during elections are held accountable. Does the hon. member believe that people who are giving misleading information, which can erode Canadian trust in our elections, should not be held accountable, and if so, why?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at third reading to support Bill C-225, introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. First, I would like to congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their co-operation during the committee's consideration of the bill and for their efforts to significantly strengthen it through a series of amendments. We were able to work together in committee and achieve this. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for their valuable testimony and insights, which led to the discussion we are having today. Before proceeding further, I would also like to note that this bill has been named “Bailey's Law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, British Columbia, who was tragically murdered by her former partner last July. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present during the committee hearings, and I had the opportunity to meet them right here in the House through our colleague, the bill's sponsor. I thank him for introducing them to us. We had a good discussion with them. I would like to point out that their work has not only inspired the House but also contributed to the amendments made to the bill in preparation for the next steps. It is for these family members and countless other survivors and family members of those who have experienced intimate partner violence that we continue our efforts to advance this vital work. I would like to focus on three points today, three key amendments made to the bill at committee that deal with first-degree murder, manslaughter and the proposed new offence of intimate partner violence. First, Bill C-225 was amended to specify that the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as first-degree murder if the perpetrator commits the murder while engaging in, or after having engaged in, coercive and controlling behaviour. This means that, under these circumstances, the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as the most serious form of homicide, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. Whenever someone murders their intimate partner, it will be treated the same way whether it was premeditated or not. This is a very important measure aimed at condemning intimate partner homicides, which disproportionately target women. First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years. At first reading, Bill C‑225 proposed to automatically designate all intimate partner murders as first-degree murders. When the bill was being studied in committee, many witnesses indicated that, even though they supported the intent behind the proposal, they were concerned that it might inadvertently penalize victims of intimate partner violence who end up killing their intimate partner in response to that violence. They wanted to make sure that the bill would not apply to persons acting in self-defence. In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to include a safeguard: Intimate partner murders would be treated as first-degree murders only if the evidence showed that the murder was committed “in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”. A pattern of controlling or coercive conduct is defined in the coercion or control offence proposed in Bill C‑16. This offence was carefully designed so that it would protect victims and not be used to their detriment. It includes indicators of persistent violence that help determine who the true aggressor is in any given situation, including fatal cases of intimate partner violence, since we must consider the alleged offence in its broader context, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents of violence. This will make it possible to distinguish between acts of abusive violence and those committed in self-defence. In short, evidence will be required to prove that the person who killed their intimate partner was also experiencing a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. This could help to ensure that victims who kill their violent partner would not be considered to have committed first-degree murder because these victims did not necessarily have control over their partners. The goal is to protect the victims in such situations. This amendment is therefore very important. It also seeks to protect women and is a direct response to the concerns raised by several witnesses in committee. It also complements the provisions of Bill C-16 related to femicide. Second, Bill C-225 was amended to require the sentencing court to consider imposing a life sentence in cases involving the manslaughter of an intimate partner where the offender committed the offence in a context of coercive control. This amendment complements the one relating to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, which I just talked about, by ensuring that, even when the homicide of an intimate partner does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats it with the utmost seriousness. Like the amendment related to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, this amendments seeks to protect victims who kill their violent partner in response to the violence they are experiencing. This provision also complements one of the aggravating factors related to manslaughter in cases of femicide already set out in Bill C-16. The amended bill also includes a number of consequential amendments related to this amendment regarding the offence of manslaughter in the context of intimate partner violence. For example, if a court were to impose a life sentence in such a case, it would also be required to impose a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 25 years. This amendment ensures that manslaughter committed by an intimate partner is treated in a manner that is comparable to second-degree murder for the purpose of the parole ineligibility provisions when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment. In doing so, it recognizes that those who take the life of an intimate partner in a context of coercive control bear greater responsibility. Lastly, Bill C‑225 was also amended to create a new offence specific to intimate partner violence that—

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I appreciate her approach to this bill, which seeks to strengthen security and cybersecurity. Earlier, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons introduced Bill C-25, which will also touch a little on Internet safety for children and families. We have talked about deepfakes. I would like my colleague to tell me how she sees these two bills, which will allow us work together on putting more security infrastructure in place for Canadians and Quebeckers.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from southwestern Ontario, the member for Guelph. It is always a privilege to stand in this House and to defend workers, to defend the people who sent us to this House, especially and particularly workers from our neck of the woods in southwestern Ontario. For so long, southwestern Ontario has been known to be the heart of Canada's auto sector. Cities like London, Windsor, Ingersoll and St. Thomas are deeply tied to the manufacturing sector. This recognition comes because of the workers. World-class workers in our region have given us a spot on the map to be able to be a competing industry in Canada but also in the world. It is an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak to this motion. This debate touches the realities of what Canadians face every single day. I want to begin by saying something in very simple words. When one builds a plan for workers without talking to workers, it is just not a plan. Let us just put it out there. It is not a plan. There is no plan without the people who have to participate in that plan. The need for good and well-paying jobs in the auto sector is there. Unifor, which is Canada's largest private sector union, representing more than 40,000 auto workers across assembly, parts manufacturing and dealerships, was not consulted before the Conservatives' grand plan. We are happy to see that they are finally working on a plan. We are happy to see them join the conversation, which has been taken up not just by workers but by families across this country, particularly in southwestern Ontario, for the last year or so. They are just joining the conversation now, and it is never too late to defend workers in Canada. It is never too late to defend families in Canada, so we are very happy to see this conversation going. However, they have not consulted workers. How do we know? John D’Agnolo, chair of Unifor's national auto council and president of Unifor Local 200 in Windsor, said it plainly: “What was most frustrating is the fact that you think you [would] go to the experts that have to deal with it every day and sit down with our leader who’s been involved.” That is his quote, not my quote. I want this House to hear that again. The experts who are dealing with this every single day, the workers who live this reality in Windsor, Ingersoll, Brampton and Oshawa, were not in the room when this plan was built. They were not consulted. There was no conversation. There was no phone call. When they responded and raised their concerns publicly and professionally, the response from the opposition was to amplify one local leader who agreed about the Conservatives' plan and to be quiet about the rest of the people, who were calling on them to consult. As I said, this confirms that this plan is not for the workers, as it purports to be. I represent London West. Ingersoll is in my backyard. I know what happened at CAMI Assembly. I know what it means for 1,200 workers. They showed up for a job that was supposed to be Canada's electric vehicle future and found that the plant was closing. I have spoken to some of the leaders there. I have spoken to the workers and the families that are impacted. I will not stand here and let a plan that workers themselves have raised serious concerns about go unchallenged. Let me tell this House exactly what Unifor said. The Unifor national president, Lana Payne, wrote directly to the Conservative leader. She said, “We are encouraged by your effort, but skeptical that this plan can restart idled Canadian facilities. In fact, we fear it may prevent potential future growth—which I do not believe is your intent.” That is her quote, that it would not “restart” but “prevent...future growth”. That is the union that has been fighting for the workers in Brampton. That is the union that has stood with the workers in Ingersoll. That is Unifor telling the opposition members that their plan, designed to save the auto sector, could not make things work for the very plants that need saving the most. Madame Payne was also clear that plans for the auto sector must be rigorous, well researched and defensible, and that the ideas must be rooted in the experiences of auto workers and formulated with auto workers and their families in mind, and this was not it. On the central one-for-one production-to-sales ratio at the heart of the Conservative plan, the chair of Unifor's national auto council said directly, “That means we don’t need Brampton, and we don’t need Ingersoll because we don’t sell enough of those vehicles to get one for one”. That is just simply wrong, saying that we do not need Brampton and we do not need Ingersoll. This is not what we are saying, and this is not a plan that anyone should get behind. The union that represents the workers in Brampton is Unifor. Unifor National President Payne also addressed the mathematics directly behind this plan, calling the claim that the plan will restore Canadian auto production to two million vehicles per year just “mathematically incorrect” and noting that the auto industry today is global, with dozens of automakers building and selling cars in Canada who have no local production presence at all. The 1965 auto pact worked because four North American automakers dominated both production and sales on this continent. That world does not exist anymore. We cannot take 1965 and paste it onto 2026 and call it a strategy. I want to be fair. Unifor acknowledged that the threat to Canada's auto sector “warrants government attention, regardless of political affiliation”, and it was encouraged to see the opposition engage on this issue. As I said when I started my speech, we are glad to see the Conservatives join the conversation that Canadians have been having for over a year. I share that. The opposition is finally talking about the auto sector in substantive terms, and that conversation really matters for all of our workers, for all Canadians. However, the workers who know this industry best have looked at what was proposed and said that the ideas were not rooted in their experience. They were not formulated with auto workers in mind. They were not rigorous enough to restart what needs to be restarted, and that also matters. Not to play for any partisan points here, but as a matter of basic respect for the people who sent us to this House to represent them every day, we are supposed to adopt policies that work for them, and this plan is simply not it. Let me tell this House what our government is doing. Our approach actually looks like this. The difference between the Conservative approach and the government's approach is not just policy and talking points. It is a process. It is a process that we built with the workers. It is a process that we have announced and have consulted on across different regions and sectors. This government has been at the table with unions like Unifor, with the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, with plant chairs, with mayors and with economic development leaders across southwestern Ontario, not after announcing a plan but before building the plan, and then getting to the place of announcing it. I know what that looks like. I have been part of some conversations as well. Two weeks ago, I convened a closed-door meeting with the economic development leaders from across southwestern Ontario, alongside FedDev Ontario. The auto sector was part of that conversation. The questions those leaders asked, the barriers they named and the priorities they raised are things that have been taken back to Ottawa to work on with our colleagues who are tasked to do this work, like the Minister of Industry and many other colleagues who have been talking about the specific impact on our workers. That is what consultation looks like. When GM and Stellantis failed to meet their production commitments in Canada, our government decided to cut GM's tariff remission quota by 24% and Stellantis' by 50%. This is the government that is telling automakers plainly that access to Canadian markets comes with obligations to Canadian workers. They do not get to take and not give back to our workers. That is consultation. That is keeping our workers in mind. The Canada-Ontario workforce tariff response announced this month is a joint federal-provincial initiative that directly supports workers through retraining, upskilling and work-sharing programs for sectors impacted by the tariffs. The workers at CAMI in Ingersoll, the workers across the supply chain who lost shifts or jobs because of a trade war that was not started by us and is unwarranted, those workers are at the centre of what our government is building. They are not an afterthought. They are not just people to whom we are going to announce what we are doing. We are working directly with them, consulting with them to come up with a plan that responds to the very challenging needs that our workers have and that Canadian families are facing. I want to talk about Ingersoll one more time, because every time this debate happens about production ratios, tariff framework and CUSMA leverage, I think about the specific human reality of what this region is living through. The workers who built Canada's first full-scale electric vehicle-manufacturing plant in Ingersoll believed they were building the future of this country's industrial base. They had—

Mr. Speaker, let me restart my answer. The question that the member opposite is asking is disingenuous. It does not take into account the fact that this is an unjust tariff war we are facing as Canadians. We have been working and collaborating with workers across our impacted sectors to make sure we can build a plan that responds now and in the future. Most importantly, they have had a whole year to join this conversation. The Conservatives just stitched up a plan without even consulting the workers who have been impacted. I think we sit on the better part of this end of the stick. We have been collaborating. We have been working. We have been responding in many different ways. The workers are looking for a response from the government.

Mr. Speaker, expanding on what I was saying, our government has been working with industry experts and unions to make sure that we can work for a plan that is beyond just a tariff, to look at and imagine the future of the auto sector and what it is going to look like on the other side. Unfortunately, that is what the government has to do. The Conservatives cannot understand that because they have been in opposition for 10 years. In the 10 years that they have been in opposition, this is the first time they have stitched up a plan for the auto sector, and they have done it without even consulting workers. I am sorry. We cannot take their plan. We have to continue to work with Canadians, industry experts and automakers to make sure that we have a plan that works for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to notice that there have been many quotes that have come out in response to their patched-up plan to respond to the auto sector a year out from the conversation. The Conservatives are talking about waiting it out. We are not waiting it out. We have a strategy that we have put in place with the collaboration of industry experts, automakers and unions. We have also provided many supports through our regional agencies to make sure that workers, even when they are struggling and losing their jobs, have opportunities to re-skill, to go into other skill sets, to continue to have jobs. Unfortunately, I am sure she picked only one quote out of the many quotes that have been said on this—

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrated the International Day of La Francophonie on March 20, we also celebrated a new $1.5-million investment to support francophone immigration to minority communities outside Quebec. It is no coincidence that these two things happened at the same time. As a Franco-Ontarian who arrived in Canada as a French-speaking refugee, I know what it means to find one's language, culture and place in a francophone minority community. In 2025, 8.9% of permanent residents admitted outside Quebec were French speaking. Our goal for this year is 9%, and we are aiming for 12% by 2029. These figures represent families that choose to build their lives in French in communities like London and southwestern Ontario. This investment is an acknowledgement of our francophone minority communities' contribution to our country. I will continue to be their voice in Ottawa and to ensure that francophones in southwestern Ontario—