Michael Cooper
St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“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 provid…”
“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, 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.”
“(2235) 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…”
“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.”
“to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates.”
The complete record
Every one of 343 lines we hold for Michael Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“He has a point up to a certain point, which is that, yes, there has been some recent jurisprudence in which the courts have been more ready to strike down mandatory minimum penalties due to an expansive application of the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine following the Nur decision of 2015. In that decision, the court lowered the threshold in which the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine could be applied, to include hypotheticals that are not merely remote or far-fetched. What that has led to in some cases is the courts' applying reasonable hypotheticals that are in fact remote, far-fetched and unreasonable. One clear example of that was the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. It was a divided, five-four, decision, but the majority, in its infinite wisdom, struck down the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of child pornography.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-16 because it is legislation that would completely eviscerate mandatory minimum penalties, virtually every one on the books, other than murder and treason. The bill would eviscerate them with a so-called safety valve that would give judges wide ambit to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty set by Parliament, regard for Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to impose a minimum sentencing floor, and regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, blameworthiness and so on. It would give them the ability to instead apply a lesser sentence. The Minister of Justice will claim that this is about saving mandatory minimum penalties in the face of certain recent jurisprudence.”
“Mr. Speaker, in so many respects, the bill is not as advertised. The Liberals have advertised the bill as one of restoring mandatory minimum penalties, but one of the things the Liberals have not restored is the mandatory minimum penalties that they removed from the Criminal Code, including with respect to serious firearms offences, like robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking, among other serious firearms offences. Would the member agree that the Liberals missed an opportunity to reinsert those mandatory minimum penalties? It is consistent with their soft-on-crime approach. This government has the dubious distinction of being the only government to remove mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code.”
“Mr. Speaker, Liberals on the ethics committee are blocking transparency around the Prime Minister 's ethics screen. The screen was mandated by the Ethics Commissioner because of the Prime Minister's vast conflicts. Canadians deserve to know how the screen is working, including instances in which potential conflicts are flagged but the Prime Minister's advisers decide against activating the screen. It is precisely those records that the Liberals are hiding from Canadians. The question is why. Is it because those records would show that the Prime Minister is involved in making decisions on matters in which he has a conflict of interest? Enough of the stonewalling. The Prime Minister needs to come clean, and he needs to come clean today by releasing all records related to the application of his ethics screen.”
“Mr. Speaker, after handing 20 million tax dollars to the nearly bankrupt Maritime Launch Services for no work, the chair of the board sold his previously worthless shares, pocketing $1.8 million. What we have is one big corrupt scheme in which Liberal insiders are getting rich while taxpayers are getting fleeced. How can the minister possibly justify this?”
“Mr. Speaker, in March, the Liberals entered into a lease with Maritime Launch Services for a so-called spaceport. The lease was backdated one full year to April 1, 2025, handing Maritime Launch Services 20 million tax dollars for no work and no value to taxpayers. Why?”
“Mr. Chair, is it a coincidence that the formal Liberal premier of Nova Scotia sits on the advisory board and the chief lobbyist is none other than a former senior staffer to the current Minister of Justice ? How else does a nearly bankrupt—”
“Mr. Chair, to review the inconvenient facts for the minister, we have a nearly bankrupt company that has no track record of launching anything into space flipping Crown land back to the taxpayers for a 1,300% profit. How does any of that make sense?”
“Mr. Chair, the answer is zero. They have zero track record of launching anything into space. The Liberals are paying Maritime Launch Services $20 million a year to lease land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own, which they are leasing from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $14,000 a year. They are then flipping it to the federal government, earning a 1,300% profit. Is that value for money, yes or no?”
“Mr. Chair, the lease was backdated to April 2025. An independent auditor's report revealed that Maritime Launch Services was not a going concern and that they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Is the real reason the lease was backdated to bail out a nearly bankrupt company? Is that not what happened?”
“Mr. Chair, in March, the Liberals entered into a $200-million lease for a so-called spaceport with a company called Maritime Launch Services. The lease was backdated by one full year to April 1, 2025. Why?”
“Mr. Speaker, the previous government is the same old Liberal government, and the buck stops with the minister . However, the minister has admitted that she asked no questions as 300 million tax dollars went up in smoke. In addition to the CEO, several other executives were paid handsomely and walked away with $60,000- and $70,000-bonuses. Who else got rich while taxpayers got hosed as the minister was asleep at the switch?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal's PrescribeIT program has been a total debacle, costing taxpayers $300 million for a program that effectively no one used and that the government has since been forced to cancel. We have learned that the CEO of the program was being paid $1 million a year, including pocketing a $215,000 bonus. This happened under the health minister 's watch. Will she accept responsibility for this latest outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is more. The company's 2025 financial statements recorded a comprehensive loss of $47 million, and revenue of under $15,000. In other words, the company was nearly bankrupt until the Liberals came to their rescue and handed them 200 million tax dollars to lease land that taxpayers already own. Is the reason the Liberals will not release the documents not that it is just one big scam in which Liberal insiders are getting rich?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals refuse to come clean about 200 million tax dollars that they handed a six-person company of Liberal insiders to lease a so-called spaceport that is really nothing more than a gravel pit. That was 200 million tax dollars to a company that does not even own the land and that leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $20,000 a year. If taxpayers are not being ripped off, then why will the Liberals not release all of the documents surrounding this shady lease?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly budget demonstrates once again that the Prime Minister 's rhetoric does not match reality. The Prime Minister promised to spend less. It turns out that he is spending more, way more than Justin Trudeau. In only one year, the Prime Minister has managed to double Trudeau's deficit, and now the Liberals are on track to rack up a record $1 trillion of new debt. It begs the question. For all of the spending and all of the debt, what do the Liberals have to show for it? The answer is record food inflation, record housing costs, terrible productivity and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Despite the Prime Minister 's rhetoric, he is more of the same. He is just another costly Liberal.”
“Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee has issued a report calling on the Prime Minister to divest himself from Brookfield. Now, the Prime Minister has set up a blind trust, but the problem is that it is not truly blind, because the Prime Minister stands to make millions from stock options and future bonus pay from an investment fund that he personally set up while he was at Brookfield. Will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and divest himself from Brookfield, or is he going to defy the direction of the ethics committee?”
“That private member's bill, and how it came about, underscores why national jury duty appreciation week is needed. There are significant knowledge gaps. Dedicating such a week to jurors and their role would help Canadians better understand the vital role that they play in the administration of justice, as well as some of the challenges that they face. Mark Farrant said, quite appropriately, that jury service is the last mandatory form of civic duty in Canada. Each year, thousands of Canadians step up to perform that civic duty. It is time that we recognize these men and women for their contributions to our justice system with a week of appreciation.”
“Following the issuance of the report, I worked with Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer and brought forward a private member's bill to do just that, to carve out an exception whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service can disclose all aspects of that service to a medical professional bound by confidentiality, thereby respecting the integrity of the jury secrecy rule while seeing that former jurors can get the help and support that they need and that they deserve. Despite unanimous support at all stages, it took four bills in three different parliaments. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer, as well as Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu for carrying that bill forward in the other place.”
“Pursuant to the jury secrecy rule, it is a criminal offence to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process, which, by the way, is often the most stressful aspect of jury service, to anyone, for life, even a medical professional. That begged the question, how can a former juror suffering from mental health issues get better and get the help they need when they cannot even discuss what is the core of their injury with a medical professional? That is why, in the unanimous report of the justice committee, it was recommended that a carve-out, an exception, be made to the jury secrecy rule.”
“During the course of that study, many former jurors testified and told their stories about how jury service had impacted them, how it had changed their lives, former jurors like Mark Farrant and like Tina Daenzer, who served as juror number one in the Paul Bernardo trial. Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer still suffer from mental health issues as a result of what they went through in very difficult trials, and they are, of course, not alone. Thousands of jurors experience mental health and other issues. One of the things we heard in the course of that study is that an impediment, in terms of jurors getting the help they need, is the jury secrecy rule.”
“They must process the evidence and they must then, at the conclusion of a trial, be sequestered and go through the evidence. It is a stressful process. The stakes are high. (1425) After all, what could be a weightier decision than judging whether the accused in the most serious of criminal cases could spend the rest of his or her life behind bars? That is precisely what is expected of jurors. I have to say that even though I practised law before I was elected to this place, I did not practice criminal law, and I had not really given much consideration to some of these issues and challenges. It was not until 2017, when I sat on the justice committee, that the committee undertook the first study of its kind on juror supports.”
“When someone is called to sit on a jury, they have their work-life balance disrupted. They often have to leave their place of work for sometimes days, sometimes weeks or sometimes months. Jury duty disrupts family and social life, all for very little remuneration. As well, there is no training. There is nothing that can fully prepare someone for discharging the responsibilities that are entrusted to jurors and that are performed every day with the very significant responsibilities that come with that. Given that there is a right to trial by jury for serious criminal matters, jurors often go through very difficult trials, where they are exposed to horrific evidence in many cases. In the face of such evidence, jurors cannot look away. They cannot close their eyes or cover their ears. They must take in the evidence.”
“Also, importantly, juries are not in court when applications to exclude evidence are brought forward. As a result, juries are not tainted by such evidence and the consequent real or perceived bias. There is something to be said about 12 citizens listening to a trial, being sequestered, deliberating on the evidence, challenging each other's views and reaching a collective judgment. That process gives weight and confidence to trial outcomes. For all of these reasons and more, juries perform a vital role in the administration of justice in Canada. Indeed, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for serious criminal matters and serious quasi-criminal matters. While juries play a vital role in the administration of justice, serving on a jury often comes at a significant personal cost.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill S-226 , legislation to establish national jury duty appreciation week. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society. Trial by jury is a profound expression of equality before the law, to be judged by one's peers, 12 fellow citizens. In so doing, juries play an integral role in upholding the right to a fair trial. As Lord Devlin famously said, trial by jury is “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”. The Law Commission of Canada, in its 1980 report on juries, highlighted the important role juries play in the administration of justice and in safeguarding the right to a fair trial. In that regard, the commission noted that juries tackle trials anew, free from the biases and predispositions that judges may acquire after presiding over similar cases over many years.”
“Mr. Speaker, at first blush, someone might dismiss this bill as merely symbolic, but I could not more strongly disagree with such a sentiment, because there are very real knowledge gaps amongst Canadians with respect to the important role that juries play in the administration of justice, as well as the significant and unique challenges faced by jurors and former jurors. Can the member speak to the issue of the knowledge gap and how dedicating a week of appreciation will help close it?”
“Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals could spend 200 million tax dollars to rent land already owned by taxpayers, but then again, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia serves on the advisory board to the company, and the lobbyist for the project is none other than a former staffer to the Liberal Minister of Justice . Is this not just another case of Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers get ripped off?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals handed 200 million tax dollars to a six-person company of Liberal insiders to lease a so-called spaceport consisting of a gravel parking lot and a small concrete slab, 200 million tax dollars to a company that does not even own the land but rather leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for a fraction of the price. How do the Liberals justify handing 200 million tax dollars to Liberal insiders for a gravel pit?”
“Mr. Speaker, the finance minister 's spokesperson said, “The minister fully respects the screen, meaning he is neither implicated in nor party to any discussions, decisions, or votes related to Alto.” Yet the minister introduced, defended and voted on legislation to direct billions of tax dollars to Alto on at least 14 occasions. How do the Liberals reconcile the statement of the spokesperson for the minister with the minister's actions?”
“Mr. Speaker, we hear the Liberals talk about foreign interference, but it was under the Liberals that Beijing interfered in the 2019 and 2021 elections, while they turned a blind eye. It is also under the Liberals that Beijing has engaged in transnational repression activities, including operating police stations and putting a bounty, as the member referenced, on Joe Tay, a candidate in the 2025 election. Now the Prime Minister , in his infinite wisdom, has signed a security law enforcement co-operation agreement with Beijing's Ministry of Public Security, the very entity responsible for transnational repression activities in Canada. I would be interested in the member's comments on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska for his overview of the history of his riding and the various name changes over the years. I can recall that at one time the riding was Richmond—Wolfe, from 1988 until 1997. Could the member explain the name Richmond—Wolfe and why that was changed to Richmond—Arthabaska following redistribution in 1996?”
“Mr. Speaker, does the House know what it is called when a minister of the Crown repeatedly introduces, speaks to and votes on legislation, but hands billions of tax dollars to a company that his partner is connected to? It is called a conflict of interest. Is that not the real reason for the obstruction? Is that not why the minister is afraid to come to committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' contempt for accountability knows no bounds. For days, Liberal MPs have been filibustering at the ethics committee to shield the finance minister from answering questions about his role in handing out billions of tax dollars to Alto, handing billions of tax dollars to a company in which his partner serves as a VP. Now, incredibly, the minister claims there is nothing to see here and that everything was above board. If that is the case, why the obstruction? Why will the minister not come to committee?”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about Madam Justice Hogue, who did identify the PRC as the biggest foreign interference threat. Indeed the Prime Minister , last year, rightly acknowledged that Beijing posed the biggest security threat to Canada. In the face of foreign interference activities, how does the member square the conclusions of Madam Justice Hogue and the statement of the Prime Minister with the Prime Minister's deal with Beijing to strike a co-operation agreement on matters of law enforcement with Canada's biggest national security threat?”
“The government said that it was going to be up and running in June 2025, then by the fall of 2025, then by the end of the year, and it is still not up and running. It needs to be set up and operating as soon as possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed working with the member on the procedure and House affairs committee. The member is exactly right. We have seen instances where nomination contests have been exploited by foreign actors. We saw that in 2019 in Don Valley North, and we have seen it in other ridings. This is something that needs to be addressed. Frankly, it is long overdue. At the procedure and House affairs committee, we had something like 70 meetings on foreign interference, in which this came up frequently. The bill does extend certain offences to nomination contests, and quite appropriately so. However, I would add that the government can do a lot more, including getting the foreign influence registry up and running.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Yellowhead has that exactly right. Nothing would preclude someone from acting as an official agent to multiple candidates, provided those candidates are running in different ridings. It would simply prohibit an official agent from acting for multiple candidates in the same riding.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the hon. member that the threshold makes it difficult to collect sufficient signatures to get onto the ballot. All that is required is the signatures of 100 electors, and in certain ridings the threshold is even lower. If anything should be considered, it should be increasing the threshold with respect to signatures, not reducing the number.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Cambridge raises a good point. The finance minister has declared a conflict in respect of Alto, the company that is working to build a high-speed rail line, because his spouse is a VP at Alto. Nonetheless, the finance minister repeatedly introduced, spoke to and voted on legislation relating to Alto and advancing that project, including billions of dollars. It does raise questions about a potential conflict of interest. We are calling on the minister to come to the ethics committee to answer questions and clear the air. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Instead, we have seen a filibuster by Liberal MPs that has gone on for 14 hours. My view is that if the minister has nothing to hide, the Liberals would end the filibuster and the minister would come to committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing all solutions, but it seems to me that this is the most practical way of addressing the abuses of the electoral process perpetrated by the longest ballot committee. The purpose and intent of the act is for a candidate to receive the support of 100 electors, not for a pool of 100 electors to sign an endless list of nomination forms to get candidates on the ballot. I would add that this issue was studied at committee and the Chief Electoral Officer, among others, said this was a reasonable solution.”
“Mr. Speaker, I share with the government House leader the fact that this so-called committee has attacked the democratic process and caused great disruption to voters. To that end, the measures contained in this bill are consistent, with recommendations that Conservatives have called for and that were adopted by the procedure and House affairs committee. When it undertook a study on the activities of the longest ballot committee, we had a unanimous report and there was consensus. Not all of those recommendations were included in this bill, but many of the key ones were. For those that were not, I would suggest that perhaps consideration be given to them for the possibility of further amendment to the bill, to further strengthen the bill as it pertains to preventing groups like the longest ballot committee from disrupting future elections.”
“We need to scrutinize these new powers for the commissioner to ensure that they are balanced and proportionate and do not unduly infringe upon due process rights. With respect to some of the new offences, they also need to be scrutinized, particularly through the lens of ensuring that they are charter-compliant and do not infringe upon freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as well as ensuring that they do not have any unintended and harmful chilling effects with respect to free speech. Let me say, in closing, that the amendments brought forward in this bill are a step forward. They are a positive step forward. They close existing loopholes that have been exploited by foreign interests and foreign actors. They provide new powers to better protect the integrity of our elections.”
“For organizations, the maximum administrative penalties are going up from $5,000 to $100,000. These represent a very significant increase. If the commissioner of Elections Canada is imposing an administrative penalty of $100,000, which is a pretty punitive penalty, it begs the question, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, whether in circumstances such as that the appropriate course of action would be to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions and to proceed by way of criminal prosecution. The need for scrutiny is underscored by the fact that under this bill, the commissioner would no longer, in all circumstances, need to get judicial authorization in order to compel evidence.”
“I have to say that it was a scandal, because we know that former prime minister Justin Trudeau was informed about Beijing's interference in the 2019 election and turned a blind eye to it. Madam Justice Hogue concluded that he did so out of direct concern for electoral consequences to the Liberal Party. Needless to say, what happened in Don Valley North demonstrates the need for extending certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act relating to offences around foreign interference to nomination contests, as well as leadership contests. With respect to some of the measures within the bill that warrant further scrutiny, I would note that administrative monetary penalties are increasing significantly: from $1,500, the maximum penalties for individuals at present, to $25,000.”
“For example, one such offence is with respect to undue influence by foreigners, which would include a person or entity knowingly incurring expenses to directly promote or oppose a nomination contestant or leadership contestant. (1100) We have seen that leadership and nomination contests have been exploited. There is a vulnerability there. Madam Justice Hogue noted that nomination contests, for example, are the primary “gateway” and vulnerability for foreign interference in the democratic process. We saw a very clear example of that in the Liberal nomination in 2019 in Don Valley North, where the Beijing Toronto consulate was involved in organizing and coordinating international students from outside of the riding to support a certain candidate, who ultimately won that nomination and was elected to this place.”
“It would put third parties closer to the same playing field as political parties insofar as political parties can only use the contributions of individual Canadians and PRs. I am pleased that in the questions I posed to the minister , he expressed openness to considering such an amendment and more broadly that he supports closing loopholes that allow for the use of foreign funding. I would hope that, at the very least, whether the government supports that amendment or not, it would support amendments to close any loopholes to the extent that they exist as a result of this exception. Speaking of foreign interference, this bill would extend certain existing offences under the Canada Elections Act to leadership and nomination contests.”
“Given the fact that we have fixed election dates in which the timing of an election is often relatively foreseeable, it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which foreign actors take advantage of such a loophole to the degree that it may exist with this exception. All of this is to say that this needs to be carefully examined at the procedure and House affairs committee. It is my view that the best solution to getting rid of the possibility of foreign money being used to influence our elections through third parties is to simply require that all third parties set up a separate bank account in which they use the contributions of individual Canadians and PRs. That seems to me to be the most straightforward, the most transparent and the most democratic approach.”
“This bill would largely, but not entirely, close these very problematic loopholes by requiring third parties to set up separate bank accounts in which they can only use the funds or donations of individual Canadians or PRs for regulated activities. There is an exception to that, which is that if a third party has contributions of less than 10% of its overall revenue in the year prior to the pre-writ period, it can use its own funds and does not need to set up a separate bank account. That does raise questions about whether there are circumstances in which foreign funds could be treated as being melded with the general funds of a third party. For example, if a foreign entity sent money to a third party the year prior to the pre-writ period, would those funds be treated as melded? That is just one example.”
“These are loopholes that have been exploited. (1055) I saw this first-hand. Back in 2017, I filed a complaint with the commissioner of Canada elections in which nearly $700,000 U.S. from the U.S.-based Tides Foundation was funnelled into eight registered third parties that campaigned against the Harper government in the 2015 election. That is just one example. Because of these loopholes and the total lack of transparency, we do not know how often this is occurring, but it is a problem having regard for the fact that only Canadians should determine the outcome of our elections, free from foreign influence and interference.”
“In other words, if the contribution is specifically sent for a regulated activity, for the purpose of engaging in a regulated activity, foreign funds would be prohibited, but if they are sent in a general way, they might be able to be used, which means that, hypothetically, third parties could have 100% of their funds being from a foreign source. Another loophole that exists is with respect to the transferring of funds or the funnelling of funds through various intermediaries. For example, if foreign entity A transferred money to Canadian intermediary B, and Canadian intermediary B transferred the money to a third party entity, it would be treated as a contribution from Canadian intermediary B, even though the ultimate source of the funds was foreign. That is problematic. I should add that it is hardly hypothetical.”