Connect with us

National

Alleged Liberal vote-buying scandal lays bare election vulnerabilities Canada refuses to fix

Published

9 minute read

Probe of membership drives and cash “rewards” echo patterns flagged years ago — in the Liberal Party and beyond. The system still invites abuse.

An alleged vote-buying scandal in Quebec’s Liberal Party is dredging up the same vulnerabilities that two landmark inquiries – one federal, one provincial – have already warned Canadians about.

The new crisis engulfing the Quebec Liberals focuses on Justin Trudeau’s former Quebec lieutenant and long-time Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, a heavyweight organizer within Canada’s most successful political machine, going back to his days in the Liberal youth wing.

The latest escalation – including early “validations” by Quebec’s anti-corruption unit, UPAC – comes in the wake of a journalistic investigation by Quebecor’s Bureau d’enquête revealing that Élections Québec is in possession of text messages between two people who allegedly worked to elect Rodriguez as Liberal leader last spring. According to those reports, the messages suggest that some party members who supported Rodriguez were “rewarded with money” in connection with their votes and membership cards. A follow-up explainer says the exchanges involved campaigners discussing sums spent so people would vote for him.

On Thursday, the Quebecor outlet reported that two UPAC investigators had visited the home of Marwah Rizqy – the party’s former parliamentary leader, recently ousted from caucus after a clash with Rodriguez – to take her statement, opening an early-stage probe that could touch on corruption, breach of trust, collusion, fraud, influence-peddling and related offences. On X, Rodriguez asked the force to “shed full light” on the affair and “lay the appropriate charges” if any illegal or unethical acts are confirmed.

Rodriguez’s response has followed a now-familiar Liberal crisis pattern. The Quebec Liberals have sent a formal legal notice to Le Journal de Montréal, whose Bureau d’enquête team broke the story, demanding the names of the people involved, the phone numbers linked to the texts, and an explanation of how the newspaper verified their authenticity – a move that has drawn a sharp defence of source protection from the paper’s editor. At the same time, the party has mandated former Quebec Superior Court chief justice Jacques R. Fournier to conduct what it says will be an independent investigation into the messages.

At the federal level, the Hogue Commission on foreign interference focused on Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, probing whether Ottawa had downplayed interference from hostile states, including China and India, for partisan reasons.

Evidence before the inquiry also showed that the Conservative Party and the NDP faced their own vulnerabilities in internal leadership and nomination races.

Justice Marie-Josée Hogue warned that party nomination contests and leadership races can be “gateways” for foreign interference – vulnerable points where hostile states can tilt our democracy out of public view. A decade earlier, the Charbonneau Commission – launched under then-premier Jean Charest’s Liberal government – concluded that illegal political financing was a key mechanism that allowed corruption and, in some cases, organized crime to penetrate Quebec’s construction sector, public contracts and party machines.

Taken together, these inquiries should have made one lesson unavoidable: the moments when parties quietly decide who gets to run, and how they are chosen, are not private-club rituals. They are national-security vulnerabilities.

Élections Québec has also confirmed something shocking, but not surprising for anyone who followed the Hogue hearings: under the current provincial Election Act, it is not explicitly illegal to pay someone in exchange for their vote in a party leadership race.

Hogue’s foreign interference inquiry also showed that Liberal Party nomination rules allowed non-citizens, including international students as young as 14, to sign up as members and vote in candidate nomination contests. Élections Québec has explained that, in the context of a leadership contest, the law does not create an offence for a person who offers money to an elector to vote a certain way – whereas in a general election or by-election, such conduct is banned and punishable by hefty fines. The same statute that rightly criminalizes vote-buying in public elections says nothing when the vote is inside a party – even when the contest is to select a potential premier.

Another strand concerns the role of federal Liberal MP Fayçal El-Khoury. As first reported in La Presse, Élections Québec is examining a conversation between El-Khoury and Marwah Rizqy at a November 14 event, because of a possible link to Rodriguez’s leadership bid. Initially, El-Khoury told La Presse he had no involvement in the race. Subsequent Quebecor reporting showed he in fact held a solicitor’s certificate – and had been authorized to collect donations for Rodriguez’s campaign, a role Rodriguez later confirmed.

Here again, the structural vulnerability matters as much as the individuals. Solicitor certificates are recorded with Élections Québec, but the lists of who holds them are not public. Only the party and the elections authority know who is empowered to raise money for leadership candidates. Without investigative reporting, the fact that a federal MP was fundraising for a provincial leadership contender – one who, like Rodriguez, is also a former federal Liberal minister – would likely never have surfaced.

Much of the evidence in the early days of the Rodriguez affair is contested, and all parties are entitled to a presumption of innocence.

But the established facts already suggest a textbook example of how poorly Canada’s laws and institutions have internalized past lessons: party nominations and leadership races remain black boxes for potential corruption, yet are still not treated like election-day voting in legal or regulatory terms.

While federal Liberals now seek to draw a hard line between themselves and their provincial cousins, the overlap of political machinery between the two parties in Quebec is hard to deny, and it points back to Rodriguez’s central role in Trudeau’s government.

Rodriguez, a former transport minister for Trudeau, was part of a government still haunted by ethical questions over Trudeau’s alleged pressure on former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to defer a prosecution against Quebec-based engineering giant SNC-Lavalin.

Wilson-Raybould later testified that the prime minister and senior officials repeatedly raised electoral considerations in Quebec when urging her to revisit the SNC-Lavalin file – including Trudeau’s remark, in a key September 2018 meeting, that there was an election coming up and that he was “an MP in Quebec.”

As The Hill Times put it in 2024, “Rodriguez’s potential departure would leave a huge gap in [the] Liberal electoral machine in Quebec,” and the same column described him as deeply embedded in Quebec’s political world and widely regarded as a highly effective organizer across the province.

There are no allegations, at this stage, of foreign interference or corrupt actors in the Rodriguez leadership race. But the developing facts lay bare exactly the kind of weakly regulated, low-visibility contests that Hogue singled out, and they show that, roughly a decade after Charbonneau’s final report in 2015, Quebec still tolerates a culture of what francophone media call “fling-flang” – loosely translated as backroom shenanigans – around political money that erodes public confidence and leaves the door open to serious threats.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Automotive

Canada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

At what point does Ottawa admit its EV plan isn’t working?

Electric vehicles produce more pollution than the gas-powered cars they’re replacing.

This revelation, emerging from life-cycle and supply chain audits, exposes the false claim behind Ottawa’s more than $50 billion experiment. A Volvo study found that manufacturing an EV generates 70 per cent more emissions than building a comparable conventional vehicle because battery production is energy-intensive and often powered by coal in countries such as China. Depending on the electricity grid, it can take years or never for an EV to offset that initial carbon debt.

Prime Minister Mark Carney paused the federal electric vehicle (EV) mandate for 2026 due to public pressure and corporate failures while keeping the 2030 and 2035 targets. The mandate requires 20 per cent of new vehicles sold in 2026 to be zero-emission, rising to 60 per cent in 2030 and 100 per cent in 2035. Carney inherited this policy crisis but is reluctant to abandon it.

Industry failures and Trump tariffs forced Ottawa’s hand. Northvolt received $240 million in federal subsidies for a Quebec battery plant before filing for bankruptcy. Lion Electric burned through $100 million before announcing layoffs. Arrival, a U.K.-based electric van and bus manufacturer, collapsed entirely. Stellantis and LG Energy Solution extracted $15 billion for Windsor. Volkswagen secured $13 billion for St. Thomas.

The federal government committed more than $50 billion in subsidies and tax credits to prop up Canada’s EV industry. Ottawa defended these payouts as necessary to match the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers major incentives for EV and battery manufacturing. That is twice Manitoba’s annual operating budget. Every Manitoban could have had a two-year tax holiday with the public money Ottawa wasted on EVs.

Even with incentives, EVs reached only 15 per cent of new vehicle sales in 2024, far short of the mandated levels for 2026 and 2030. When federal subsidies ended in January 2025, sales collapsed to nine per cent, revealing the true level of consumer demand. Dealer lots overflowed with unsold inventory. EV sales also slowed in the U.S. and Europe in 2024, showing that cooling demand is a broader trend.

As economist Friedrich Hayek observed, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Politicians and bureaucrats cannot know what millions of Canadians know about their own needs. When federal ministers mandate which vehicles Canadians must buy and which companies deserve billions, they substitute the judgment of a few hundred officials for the collective wisdom of an entire market.

Bureaucrats draft regulations that determine the vehicles Canadians must purchase years from now, as if they can predict technology and consumer preferences better than markets.

Green ideology provided perfect cover. Invoke a climate emergency and fiscal responsibility vanishes. Question more than $50 billion in subsidies and you are labelled a climate denier. Point out the environmental costs of battery production, and you are accused of spreading misinformation.

History repeatedly teaches that central planning always fails. Soviet five-year plans, Venezuela’s resource nationalization and Britain’s industrial policy failures all show the same pattern. Every attempt to run economies from political offices ends in misallocation, waste and outcomes opposite to those promised. Concentrated political power cannot ever match the intelligence of free markets responding to real prices and constraints.

Markets collect information that no central planner can access. Prices signal scarcity and value. Profits and losses reward accuracy and punish error. When governments override these mechanisms with mandates and subsidies, they impair the information system that enables rational economic decisions.

The EV mandate forced a technological shift and failed. Billions in subsidies went to failing companies. Taxpayers absorbed losses while corporations walked away. Workers lost their jobs.

Canada needs a full repeal of the EV mandate and a retreat from PMO planners directing market decisions. The law must be struck, not paused. The contrived 2030 and 2035 targets must be abandoned.

Markets, not cabinet ministers, must determine what technologies Canadians choose.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Energy

Unceded is uncertain

Published on

Tsawwassen Speaker Squiqel Tony Jacobs arrives for a legislative sitting. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

From Resource Works

Cowichan case underscores case for fast-tracking treaties

If there are any doubts over the question of which route is best for settling aboriginal title and reconciliation – the courts or treaty negotiations – a new economic snapshot on the Tsawwassen First Nation should put the question to rest.

Thanks to a modern day treaty, implemented in 2009, the Tsawwassen have leveraged land, cash and self-governance to parlay millions into hundreds of millions a year, according to a new report by Deloitte on behalf of the BC Treaty Commission.

With just 532 citizens, the Tsawwassen First Nation now provides $485 million in annual employment and 11,000 permanent retail and warehouse jobs, the report states.

Deloitte estimates modern treaties will provide $1 billion to $2 billion in economic benefits over the next decade.

“What happens, when you transfer millions to First Nations, it turns into billions, and it turns into billions for everyone,” Sashia Leung, director of international relations and communication for the BC Treaty Commission, said at the Indigenous Partnership Success Showcase on November 13.

“Tsawwassen alone, after 16 years of implementing their modern treaty, are one of the biggest employers in the region.”

BC Treaty Commission’s Sashia Leung speaks at the Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase 2025.
BC Treaty Commission’s Sashia Leung speaks at the Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase 2025.

Nisga’a success highlights economic potential

The Nisga’a is another good case study. The Nisga’a were the first indigenous group in B.C. to sign a modern treaty.

Having land and self-governance powers gave the Nisga’a the base for economic development, which now includes a $22 billion LNG and natural gas pipeline project – Ksi Lisims LNG and the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line.

“This is what reconciliation looks like: a modern Treaty Nation once on the sidelines of our economy, now leading a project that will help write the next chapter of a stronger, more resilient Canada,” Nisga’a Nation president Eva Clayton noted last year, when the project received regulatory approval.

While the modern treaty making process has moved at what seems a glacial pace since it was established in the mid-1990s, there are some signs of gathering momentum.

This year alone, three First Nations signed final treaty settlement agreements: Kitselas, Kitsumkalum and K’omoks.

“That’s the first time that we’ve ever seen, in the treaty negotiation process, that three treaties have been initialed in one year and then ratified by their communities,” Treaty Commissioner Celeste Haldane told me.

Courts versus negotiation

When it comes to settling the question of who owns the land in B.C. — the Crown or First Nations — there is no one-size-fits-all pathway.

Some First Nations have chosen the courts. To date, only one has succeeded in gaining legal recognition of aboriginal title through the courts — the Tsilhqot’in.

The recent Cowichan decision, in which a lower court recognized aboriginal title to a parcel of land in Richmond, is by no means a final one.

That decision opened a can of worms that now has private land owners worried that their properties could fall under aboriginal title. The court ruling is being appealed and will almost certainly end up having to go to the Supreme Court.

This issue could, and should, be resolved through treaty negotiations, not the courts.

The Cowichan, after all, are in the Hul’qumi’num treaty group, which is at stage 5 of a six-stage process in the BC Treaty process. So why are they still resorting to the courts to settle title issues?

The Cowichan title case is the very sort of legal dispute that the B.C. and federal governments were trying to avoid when it set up the BC Treaty process in the mid-1990s.

Accelerating the process

Unfortunately, modern treaty making has been agonizingly slow.

To date, there are only seven modern implemented treaties to show for three decades of works — eight if you count the Nisga’a treaty, which predated the BC Treaty process.

Modern treaty nations include the Nisga’a, Tsawwassen, Tla’amin and five tribal groups in the Maa-nulth confederation on Vancouver Island.

It takes an average of 10 years to negotiate a final treaty settlement. Getting a court ruling on aboriginal title can take just as long and really only settles one question: Who owns the land?

The B.C. government has been trying to address rights and title through other avenues, including incremental agreements and a tripartite reconciliation process within the BC Treaty process.

It was this latter tripartite process that led to the Haida agreement, which recognized Haida title over Haida Gwaii earlier this year.

These shortcuts chip away at issues of aboriginal rights and title, self-governance, resource ownership and taxation and revenue generation.

Modern treaties are more comprehensive, settling everything from who owns the land and who gets the tax revenue from it, to how much salmon a nation is entitled to annually.

Once modern treaties are in place, it gives First Nations a base from which to build their own economies.

The Tsawwassen First Nation is one of the more notable case studies for the economic and social benefits that accrue, not just to the nation, but to the local economy in general.

The Tsawwassen have used the cash, land and taxation powers granted to them under treaty to create thousands of new jobs. This has been done through the development of industrial, commercial and residential lands.

This includes the development of Tsawwassen Mills and Tsawwassen Commons, an Amazon warehouse, a container inspection centre, and a new sewer treatment plant in support of a major residential development.

“They have provided over 5,000 lease homes for Delta, for Vancouver,” Leung noted. “They have a vision to continue to build that out to 10,000 to 12,000.”

Removing barriers to agreement

For First Nations, some of the reticence in negotiating a treaty in the past was the cost and the loss of tax exemptions. But those sticking points have been removed in recent years.

First Nations in treaty negotiations were originally required to borrow money from the federal government to participate, and then that loan amount was deducted from whatever final cash settlement was agreed to.

That requirement was eliminated in 2019, and there has been loan forgiveness to those nations that concluded treaties.

Another sticking point was the loss of tax exemptions. Under Section 87 of Indian Act, sales and property taxes do not apply on reserve lands.

But under modern treaties, the Indian Act ceases to apply, and reserve lands are transferred to title lands. This meant giving up tax exemptions to get treaty settlements.

That too has been amended, and carve-outs are now allowed in which the tax exemptions can continue on those reserve lands that get transferred to title lands.

“Now, it’s up to the First Nation to determine when and if they want to phase out Section 87 protections,” Haldane said.

Haldane said she believes these recent changes may account for the recent progress it has seen at the negotiation table.

“That’s why you’re seeing K’omoks, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum – three treaties being ratified in one year,” she said. “It’s unprecedented.”

The Mark Carney government has been on a fast-tracking kick lately. But we want to avoid the kind of uncertainty that the Cowichan case raises, and if the Carney government is looking for more things to fast-track that would benefit First Nations and the Canadian economy, perhaps treaty making should be one of them.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X