Michael Cooper

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying near record high fuel prices. Justin, from my riding, is raising four children on a single income. He has to drive 65 kilometres to work because he cannot afford to live any closer, and now he can barely afford to get to work due to skyrocketing fuel prices. Why will the Liberals not help folks like Justin by adopting our Conservative plan to save Canadians money by lifting not just one tax, but all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is out of touch, blaming everyone but himself for skyrocketing fuel prices. He blames foreign factors. Yesterday, he blamed the provinces, but it is his industrial carbon tax and clean fuel standard that are hiking prices. Instead of playing the blame game, why does the Prime Minister not simply control what he can control and lift all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day, saving the average family $1,200?

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about corruption surrounding the Liberal government's now infamous lease with Maritime Launch Services for a so-called space port. We know that the government entered into this lease, notwithstanding that Maritime Launch Services had no history of launching anything into space. Indeed, Maritime Launch Services had a history of not doing much of anything because Maritime Launch Services was a practically bankrupt company, sustaining a loss of $47 million and with revenue of just $15,000 in 2025. As such, it is no wonder that the share value of Maritime Launch Services was practically worthless, but then the Liberals entered into the so-called space port lease on March 16 of this year, and rather conveniently, the Liberals backdated the lease by one full year to 2025, funnelling $20 million tax dollars to Maritime Launch Services for no work and no value, effectively bailing out Maritime Launch Services. What was the consequence of that? Surprise, surprise, the share value of Maritime Launch Services soared, and immediately following that, within three weeks, the chair of the board sold three million previously worthless shares, walking away with $1.8 million. He became a millionaire overnight. Do members know what that is called? It is called “pump and dump”. Do members know what else it is called? It is called “corruption”, which the Liberals allowed to happen because they failed to take the most basic of measures to prevent this kind of insider profiteering, such as, for example, insisting upon a lock-up agreement. Why did they not do that? Why did they allow this to happen? Is it because this type of corruption is business as usual with the Liberals?

Mr. Speaker, my question was about pump and dump. It was about corruption. Here we have the Liberal government funnelling $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, bailing out a nearly bankrupt company, upon which the chair of the board immediately sells three million of his shares, walking away with $1.8 million. Does the parliamentary secretary consider that to be normal? Is that just business as usual with the Liberals? How can the parliamentary secretary justify this type of corruption?

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-218, the right to recover act, introduced by my friend, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City. The title of the bill fully reflects the substance of the bill. It is the right to recover: to give persons struggling with mental health challenges hope and help, instead of state-sanctioned, state-administered death, by putting an indefinite pause on the Liberal government's ill-thought-out expansion of MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. I commend the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for bringing forward the bill, because it is absolutely needed. We need legislation to be passed by Parliament. Otherwise, this ill-thought-out expansion will take effect in March 2027. I have to say that it should never have been this way. It should never have come to this. The planned expansion is a master class in how not to do policy and how not to legislate. Back in 2021, the then Liberal justice minister David Lametti, at the eleventh hour, accepted a radical Senate amendment, which he initially opposed, that set the train in motion for the expansion of MAID for mental illness, effective March 2023. There was no meaningful study, no meaningful consultation and no meaningful debate. The Liberals simply rammed it through. This was on a question of life and death concerning among the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society. It could not be more reckless than that. Here we are, more than five years later, and the planned expansion has been nothing short of a mess. It has been completely shambolic, including the fact that the government has been all but forced to introduce two emergency bills to delay implementation because it did not do its homework at the outset. Had the Liberals done their homework, they would have heard loud and clear what experts, including leading psychiatrists, have been saying, and that is that MAID for mental illness is a really bad idea, that it cannot be implemented safely for a multitude of reasons, not least of which include two unresolved clinical issues. The first of those issues is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. In other words, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict whether someone suffering from a mental illness will get better. Indeed, many mental illnesses are remediable, and they are very difficult to predict in terms of a prognosis. As Dr. Karin Neufeld, who is one of Canada's most renowned psychiatrists and is none other than the chair of the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, put it in her brief to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, which is studying this very issue, “Psychiatric disorders lack reliable biomarkers, follow non-linear trajectories, and frequently improve after years of severe impairment.” Accordingly, Dr. Neufeld concluded that psychiatrists are poor predictors of long-term outcomes. Simply put, modern psychiatry lacks the tools to predict irremediability in individual cases of mental illness. It is so uncertain in terms of predicting irremediability, that studies show that psychiatrists get it right less than 50% of the time. As Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the past chair of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, told the special joint committee, one would be better off flipping a coin to predict irremediability. This is on a matter, again, involving life and death. What that means is that if this expansion were to go forward in March 2027, or at all, tens of thousands of Canadians who could get better, recover and lead productive lives will have their lives prematurely ended. This prospect is untenable, and it is unconscionable. The uncertainty around predicting irremediability not only renders MAID for mental illness a completely reckless and dangerous policy, but also makes it impossible to administer in compliance with the law. This is because a prerequisite to qualifying for MAID is that an individual must have a grievous and irremediable condition. Given that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict irremediability in cases of mental illness, the legal basis for MAID cannot be satisfied, full stop. Therefore, we have not only a clinical issue, but also a major legal impediment to this expansion going forward. The second major clinical issue identified is that it is difficult to distinguish, in cases of mental illness, a rational request for aid versus one motivated by suicidal ideation. This is because, in many cases, suicidal ideation, suicidal thoughts, are a symptom of the illness, and that is underscored by the fact that, in more than 90% of suicide deaths in Canada, mental illness is a factor. What that means is, if this were to go forward, long-standing suicide prevention efforts would be undermined. The mental health law would be upended, because given that suicidal ideation is often a symptom of mental illness, it begs the very practical question of which requests for MAID would merit intervention and suicide prevention versus the granting of MAID. Given these unresolved clinical issues and other issues, and the clear opposition from the vast majority of psychiatrists, including the 17 chairs of psychiatry representing all 17 medical schools in Canada, who penned a letter to the Minister of Justice saying to put an indefinite pause on this, the Liberals twice, as I alluded to, introduced emergency legislation to kick the can down the road. They kicked the can down the road yet again with a new date of implementation, that being March 2027. Guess what. Nothing has changed. The same clinical issues remain unresolved, and there is no evidence that they will be or can be resolved in the foreseeable future, if ever. This is why the special joint committee on MAID, which wrapped up its work in June, of which I was a member, of which the member for Cloverdale—Langley City was a member, recommended that the government stop kicking the can down the road and simply put an indefinite pause on this ill-thought-out expansion. I would note that the recommendation was a unanimous recommendation from Conservative and Liberal MPs on the committee. The government likes to claim it makes decisions based upon evidence, that it make decisions based upon the facts. Well, if that is so, then to follow the evidence, there is only one, objectively speaking, reasonable course of action for the government to take, which is to admit it got it wrong in 2021 and to reverse course by putting an indefinite pause on this expansion. Bill C-218, the right to recover act, provides a clear path forward to do just that. Let us pass Bill C-218.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provide proof of their last place of residence prior to the issuance of a ballot. Currently, there is no requirement of proof of residence. Additionally, the Conservatives oppose the recommendation for earlier candidate nomination deadlines, which was not supported by evidence. We also caution against the use of hybrid ballot delivery systems, including using Canadian diplomatic missions as polling stations, out of concern for ballot integrity and ballot secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since legislation was passed to establish a foreign influence registry. Two years later, the Liberals have missed every deadline to get the registry up and running. On what date will the foreign influence registry finally be fully operational?

Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to close significant loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into registered third parties. The bill would fail to close those loopholes. Why did the government refuse to close those loopholes? Why would this bill, if it goes forward, allow for foreign money to continue to be funnelled into third parties to influence Canadian elections?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome. Among them are measures to counter the undemocratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee, which caused significant disruption in a number of ridings in the last election and in several by-elections by effectively flooding the ballot with fake candidates. This was all for the purpose of sowing confusion, making it more difficult for Elections Canada to administer elections and tabulate the vote, and undermining general public confidence in the voting process. This bill contains measures the Conservatives called for quite some time ago. It took the government quite some time to finally move forward with legislation to address those gaps and those loopholes that were taken advantage of by the longest ballot committee, but this bill does that, and we welcome those measures. Additionally, we welcome measures in the bill to establish new offences and to extend other offences to leadership races and nomination races to counter foreign interference. The bill would also provide needed new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections and increase administrative monetary penalties to give those penalties some teeth with respect to contraventions of the act by individuals and organizations. I would observe, however, that I have some concerns with respect to the powers that are being given to the commissioner insofar as the commissioner would have the power to compel evidence without judicial authorization. I would also note that when one looks at those powers, combined with the powers to impose administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for organizations and entities, it begs the question of whether there is, in fact too, much discretion being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. In that regard, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, if, in fact, a contravention reached the level of imposing a $100,000 fine, it would seem to me that in the circumstances, the better course would be for the commissioner to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions to proceed by way of criminal prosecution. While there are measures in this bill that the Conservatives broadly support, it is far from a perfect bill. There are measures that could have been included in this bill that would have gone a lot further toward strengthening the Canada Elections Act, strengthening the integrity of our voting process and safeguarding our elections, which the Liberals unfortunately did not include. I also have significant concerns about the failure of the Liberals to close well-recognized loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into third parties to influence voters at election time. Fundamental to our democracy is how elections must be decided by Canadians, and Canadians alone. Unfortunately, what we have in this country, which we have had for years, are foreign interests and foreign governments that have used third parties to influence our elections. There are two well-recognized loopholes. One is a melding loophole, wherein certain contributions, including foreign contributions, are treated as part of the general revenue of a third party that can in turn then be used for regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods. The other loophole is one whereby foreign funds are treated as Canadian funds to third parties. In that regard, I would note that if, for example, foreign entity A transfers funds to Canadian entity B, and Canadian entity B transfers those funds to a third party, at present, those funds are treated as funds coming from Canadian entity B, even though the true source of those funds is foreign. This loophole is not a hypothetical loophole. In 2017, I brought forward a complaint to the commissioner of Canada elections with respect to $700,000 U.S. that was funnelled from the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation to a British Columbia entity. That entity then disbursed the $700,000 U.S. to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates. The commissioner of Canada elections, in response to my complaint, advised that there were no contraventions of the act, or at least no contraventions that could be made out, and the reason for that is this loophole that presently exists. I have to say, I think Canadians would be alarmed that it is, in fact, that easy for foreign interests and foreign governments, with witting third parties, frankly, to use foreign funds to influence how Canadians vote and what issues are brought to their attention in the lead-up to and during an election. It is completely unacceptable that the Liberals have been aware of these loopholes for 10 years now. In fact, they benefited from these loopholes. They benefited from the use of foreign money, just as the Liberals benefited from Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and have, up until now, refused to take action. Before I say what this bill would do, I would just add that the loopholes I am speaking about are ones that have been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. I raised these loopholes multiple times with the Chief Electoral Officer when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. He also acknowledged these precise loopholes in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, and he called for those loopholes to be closed. This bill purports to close those loopholes, and it would do so with a general requirement. It would require third parties to set up a separate bank account, and the funds going into it can come only from individual Canadians. This would be a positive measure. It is one that we have long called for. It would address issues around foreign interference and foreign influence insofar as the funds would be from individual Canadians. The bill would provide much needed transparency. We would be able to more easily track and see exactly who is donating to third parties that, in turn, seek to influence Canadians in the lead-up to and during elections. It would also treat third parties on par, more or less, with political parties insofar as political parties can use contributions only from individual Canadians. This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that. If that is good, it begs the question, “What is problematic?” It is problematic that this would be a general rule, but there is a big exception contained in the bill, which is that third parties may continue to use their own funds and their own general revenue. In other words, they would not have to set up an individual bank account and they would not be limited to individual contributions, provided that the contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period. In such a case, funds used by the third party would be treated as commingled, whatever the source. That is not my interpretation. When I posed a question to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, and asked him how this exception would work and exactly what funds third parties would be able to use, he said in his answer, “They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds.” If a third party can use contributions coming from its own revenue, whatever the source, and such funds are commingled, then it follows that commingled funds could be foreign funds. When I raised that issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, he conceded that “the practical challenge is true there as well.” The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that, yes, effectively, where this exception applies, third parties would be able to use foreign funds. As a result, the bill would close loopholes with respect to the use of foreign funds, but then create a new loophole. If it does not create a completely new loophole, it would continue the loophole around the melding or commingling of funds, including foreign funds. The Liberals will say this is an exception, not the rule, and it would only apply if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue, meaning that it should not apply to very many third parties. However, who is to say this is so, and who is to say 10% or less of a third party's revenues, being contributions, is an insignificant amount of money? There are many third parties that have tens of millions of dollars, so 10% could amount to millions of dollars of foreign funds. I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the general rule of having to set up individual bank accounts and relying exclusively on the contributions of individual Canadians, whereas some of the bigger, more influential third parties would continue to be able to get away with using their own funds, including possibly and likely foreign funds in some cases. It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer has supported this type of an exception, and in that respect, the government has adopted what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended. I can see that point, but I respectfully disagree, and I have made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that I disagree with his position. I have challenged him on his position on a number of occasions. The argument that he has put is that there are charter issues around freedom of speech. However, there is no case authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has cited. The best he has offered and the best the Liberals have offered is this vague argument. It is a vague argument notwithstanding, by the way, that when this issue was presented at committee, a number of witnesses, including an esteemed constitutional lawyer, including Professor Lori Turnbull and including Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, said that, yes, this loophole, this exception, would result in foreign funding and that, given the very serious issues around foreign interference, this loophole would be taken advantage of by foreign actors, including hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime. As I noted, it has been taken advantage of by other groups in not necessarily hostile foreign states, but in other states such as the United States, like through the Tides Foundation. The position we took is to get rid of the exception, create an equal playing field for all third parties and require every third party to set up an individual bank account. Our position was to require that all third parties, without exception, could only accept contributions from individual Canadians. That would be simple, it would be fair, it would be transparent and from an administrative and enforcement standpoint, it would be far better and far easier than the complicated framework or scheme set up by this legislation in respect of setting a threshold of contributions that constitutes 10% or less of the third party's revenue and that the period be in the year prior to the pre-election period. If one were to take at face value the charter issues that have been, and again I underscore the word “vaguely”, cited, I would question how this exception would satisfy them. If these charter issues are so real and so pressing, then why is it that with this legislation, the Liberals would be requiring that, as a general rule, third parties set up an individual bank account that accepts only contributions from individual Canadians. If that infringes upon—

Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed was simply to remove the exception and simply to require that all third parties be required to set up an individual bank account and that they only be able to receive contributions from individual Canadians. We believe that would be charter-compliant and that it would, to the greatest extent possible, close loopholes around foreign funding and foreign influence through third parties.

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. This could have been done sooner. The government did not need to wait a year and a half to do this. Also, I would note that the name change that the member has proposed and that would be changed through this bill would, I believe, restore what had been the name of the riding at one time.

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think it underscores the fact that the Prime Minister is AWOL when it comes to this House. It underscores how disconnected he is from the business of this House and how little attention he pays to the business of this House. Perhaps he should consider showing up for once.

Mr. Speaker, I agree. There are many measures in this bill that we support, that we have long called for. We have worked with the government, getting it through second reading stage, over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We brought forward some amendments where I think there was a missed opportunity, however. There was an opportunity to fully close well-identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding to third parties. That is something that is unacceptable that needs to be corrected. Those loopholes do need to be closed.

Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. The member does raise a good point, insofar as the bill would prohibit someone from signing more than one nomination form. There are arguments counter to that amendment in the bill. However, I would argue that on balance it is a reasonable amendment to the Canada Elections Act, preventing the longest ballot committee and other such bad actors from engaging in such activities in the future. The objective or the purpose of the act is that a candidate must have the endorsement or support of 100 electors, not for 100 electors to flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. I think, given what we have seen, in terms of the disruption to our elections, this is a reasonable amendment. As for informing electors who might be inclined to sign more than one nomination form, there are measures that can be taken and that I believe Elections Canada will undertake, such as providing on the nomination form a reminder that an individual can only sign one candidate's nomination form.

Mr. Speaker, as the government works to get its legislation through, we in the official opposition will discharge our responsibility, which is to hold the government to account and to carefully scrutinize legislation before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to stop the payment of 20 million tax dollars that would otherwise flow to Maritime Launch Services, pursuant to the government's main estimates. These 20 million tax dollars are part of the 10-year, $200-million lease the Liberals entered into with Maritime Launch Services to lease land that consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. “Do not worry,” say the Liberals. “It is not just any gravel parking lot. It is not just any concrete slab. It is the site of Canada's new sovereign spaceport.” Needless to say, there are all sorts of questions surrounding this $200-million lease. They are questions that the Liberals have refused to be transparent about. In fact, the Liberals, at virtually every turn, have obstructed and refused to answer the most basic of questions. It is not only that. They have hidden the lease from Canadians. They do not want Canadians to know where 200 million tax dollars are going. What sorts of questions are there in relation to this $200-million lease? To begin with, the government could acquire land for the site of the spaceport in the Canso area for approximately $2.5 million, but instead, the government is leasing land for $20 million a year at a cost of 200 million tax dollars over the span of 10 years. How does that make sense? For Maritime Launch Services, it is a pretty good deal. Guess why. It does not own the land. It leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and then flips it to Ottawa at a 1,300% profit. It must be nice to be Maritime Launch Services. It is not so nice for everyday taxpayers. One might say Maritime Launch Services brings a certain level of sophistication and a certain level of expertise in developing Canada's supposedly first sovereign spaceport, but then the question becomes, “What is Maritime Launch Services?” It turns out that Maritime Launch Services is nothing more than a two-bit, six-person company. Despite its name, Maritime Launch Services does not have a history of launching much of anything. It has been in business for 10 years now and it has launched precisely nothing, zilch, into space. To be kind to Maritime Launch Services, in the span of two years, it has had two suborbital rocket launches, one of which was a model rocket from York University's model rocket club. Again, it was a model rocket from a university's model rocket club. This is the company the Liberals are entrusting to develop Canada's first sovereign spaceport. They have to be kidding. The chair of the board is Sasha Jacob. He has a history, and it is not a pretty history, of securities infractions. Indeed, he has the dubious distinction of being fined $100,000 for securities infractions and securities irregularities. That is not good, to say the least. It begs the question: Why are the Liberals doing business with and handing $200 million to a company whose chair was fined $100,000 for securities infractions? Given that the scope of the business of Maritime Launch Services involves collaborating with university model rocket clubs, it is no surprise, perhaps, that Maritime Launch Services has not exactly been the most successful company and not the most successful business. In fact, their 2025 financial statements report a massive loss of $47 million and revenue under $15,000. In fact, the independent auditor's report stated that “material uncertainty [exists] that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.” In other words, Maritime Launch Services was on the verge of bankruptcy, that is, until the Liberals bailed it out with this sweetheart $200-million 10-year lease on land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own. It really begs the question: How is it possible that a company that has six employees, that has not launched anything into space, that has a chair of the board with securities infractions and that was on the verge of bankruptcy managed to land a $200-million lease with the federal government on land that they do not even own and which consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot? The answer to that, of course, with the Liberals, is that Maritime Launch Services is comfortably associated with none other than Liberal insiders. The chair of the board who I referenced, Mr. Jacob, is associated with major Liberal insider Gerald Butts. There is then Stephen McNeil, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, who conveniently sits on the advisory board of Maritime Launch Services. There is the chief lobbyist for Maritime Launch Services, who is none other than a former senior staffer to the Minister of Justice, whose riding happens to be situated next to the launch site. Perhaps that explains how Maritime Launch Services got this sweetheart lease. The lease is not about developing Canada's first sovereign spaceport. It is about Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers foot the bill. That is precisely what has happened up until now. I say that because another question is that the subject lease, even though it was entered into on April 1 of this year, was backdated to April 1, 2025. Why was the lease backdated to 2025? The effect of backdating was for the Liberals to then immediately funnel $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, to bail out the nearly bankrupt company. Guess what happened? The chair of the board, Mr. Jacob, immediately turned around and sold $3 million of previously worthless shares, pocketing a cool $1.8 million. It must be nice to be Mr. Jacob. It must be nice to be a Liberal insider. It sounds like one big pump and dump scheme to me. Given the questions and the cloud that hangs over Maritime Launch Services, and the Liberals' complete lack of transparency, it is important that $20 million of hard-earned tax dollars do not go to Maritime Launch Services until those basic questions are answered and the air—

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what has happened since the lease was entered into. There has been no rocket launch and no construction. All there is is a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. However, someone got rich, and it happens to be Mr. Jacob, who sold three million shares, walking away with $1.8 million. Why did the Liberals not, for example, insist upon a lock-up agreement, which would be the standard practice, instead of allowing the chair of a nearly bankrupt company to walk away with $1.8 million?

Mr. Speaker, I understand the issue the member has raised. It underscores what a debacle and poorly thought-out policy the carbon tax was from start to finish that the Liberal government kept in place for years, which Conservatives called on it to abolish. Of course, it technically has scrapped the consumer carbon tax, but has maintained a hidden industrial carbon tax that is increasing the cost of everything. Therefore, yes, I agree that it underscores total Liberal incompetence and mismanagement.