Julie Dzerowicz

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. Let me start by talking a little about the moment we are living in. I think it is really important for us to understand the context in which the bill is introduced. As we often say these days, the world has changed. The Prime Minister has called it a “rupture”. Our relationship with the United States, our largest trading partner, is not what it was. We face unjustified tariffs on Canadian workers and industries, and we face talk about our sovereignty that no Canadian ever expected to hear from an American president. Last week, before the European Parliament, the Prime Minister described what we were up against: trade being weaponized, tariffs used as pressure, and supply chains turned into vulnerabilities. His answer was not to retreat; it was to build our strength at home and to work with trusted, like-minded partners who share our belief in democracy and the rule of law. We are seeking alliances that are strong enough so that no one can dictate our choices here in Canada. That is exactly what Canadians have asked of us. They have given the government a clear mandate to protect our economy, our prosperity and our sovereignty. We are doing that by diversifying our trade with reliable partners and by building right here at home. The world is responding. Just over a week ago, at Canada's first-ever investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries, managing more than $100 trillion in assets, came to Toronto to look at more than 160 Canadian projects. The summit closed with nearly half a trillion dollars in new investment commitments. However, interest is not the same as shovels in the ground. Investors told us what communities have told us for years: Our approvals have taken too long. Projects have often waited more than five years for federal decisions, with separate reviews and separate consultations for each permit. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-39, which is before the House today. It would create the conditions for investment in projects that support good jobs and growth and for the safe and efficient movement of goods across our country, while protecting the environment and upholding the rights of indigenous peoples. I know we have heard this multiple times, but it is important for me to state as well that the bill has three key parts. The first part, “Build Canada Now”, would modernize our regulatory and permitting system to eliminate duplication with lengthy timelines. Our standard is simple: one project, one review and one year. Canada will always be a country of high standards, but high standards do not mean that the decisions have to be slow. The second part is “Keep Canada Moving”. We would be modernizing our transportation systems. This would reduce bottlenecks and better connect our trade corridors and ports so goods move faster and costs come down. The third part, “Canada Strong For All”, would modernize the Canada Labour Code and strengthen protections for workers. I have heard some questions from my constituents. They have been asking me why the bill is so large. The answer is that getting a project built never depends on just one thing. It depends on assessments, on energy regulation and on fisheries, waterways, ports, rails and the workers who build them. It depends on many things. If we fix only one of those aspects, the project is still stuck. To actually get things built, we have to fix a number of laws together, ideally all at once. Why do we have to move quickly? It is because investment decisions being made now will shape our economy for decades. The capital that does not come here will go elsewhere. However, urgency cannot mean skipping scrutiny. The bill deserves the debate we are having now in the House. It deserves careful study at committee. I know that we are open to making it even better. I want to spend a little bit more time on the labour aspects of the bill, which are in part 3, because there is a lot of misinformation out there and because I know that my constituents care about labour deeply. My riding of Davenport was built by working people, many of them newcomers to Canada. Let me be very clear: There is no provision in the bill that would take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter, and the current government will always protect it. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more tools, more time and more assets to reach a deal at the table, where the best agreements are made. About 95% of federally regulated disputes are already resolved without a work stoppage. This bill focuses on the few relationships that break down again and again. Let me highlight just a few of those measures. First, where the last round ended in a strike, a lockout or imposed arbitration, bargaining must start six months early with federal mediators at the table. Second, the bill would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving both parties time to reach a deal before any strike or a lockout. Third, a new special mediator would work intensively with both sides, and if there were no deal, the mediator's report would become public. That report would set out where each side stands and why talks broke down so members, employers and Canadians could see it all. Fourth, newly unionized workers, new unions, would get support from our government to reach a first contract. Fifth, the bill would enable penalties for bargaining in bad faith. Those measures are only part of it. Alongside these changes come stronger protections for workers on the job, from safer workplaces to a real crackdown on wage theft. Let me turn to section 107 because I know there has been a lot of discussion about it in the media and in this House. This is not a new provision. It has been in the Canada Labour Code since 1984. Unions have told us that it has been used without enough transparency, so we listened and have proposed some changes. Bill C-39 would put guardrails around it. Before a minister can even consider using it, a special mediator would need to have completed their work and a public report would need to have been considered. Then the minister would need to conclude that a work stoppage would have a significant adverse national impact in an assessment that must weigh the right to strike. There must be a balance of items that are weighed in that decision. As the Minister of Jobs and Families has said, the minister would have to show their work, clearly laying out the reasons why intervention was necessary in the national interest. I know that many labour leaders see this differently. I very much respect that and we will be listening very closely to them at the committee. However, it is important to remember that, at its heart, this bill would help parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike. Extraordinary intervention should always be a last resort. When negotiations go well, everyone wins. Davenport constituents have also written to me, worried that we are dismantling environmental protections. This bill would not remove impact assessments that examine environmental, health and social effects, nor would it remove permitting or consultation. It would change who leads the review and how departments work together, not the standards that apply. One year does not mean cutting corners. The clock only starts once a complete application and all studies are in. There have been extensive consultations on this bill because consultations matter. Over the summer, Canadians sent in more than 26,000 submissions. The government had proposed letting cabinet exempt some projects from the jeopardy test in the Species at Risk Act. We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this. They pushed back very strongly and the proposal is not in this bill. Finally, I want to spend a minute on the impact on indigenous communities. This bill would not change the duty to consult, our modern treaty obligations or commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It would change the burden. Instead of a separate consultation for every department and every permit, there would be one coordinated process per community, per project, through a new Crown consultation hub that would identify concerns early with the aim of securing free, prior and informed consent. Timelines, though, could be extended or suspended to complete consultation. The Prime Minister often says we can give ourselves far more than anyone can take away. This bill is how we are doing that. We are building faster. We are protecting workers. We are protecting nature and building in partnership with indigenous peoples. I urge all members to support Bill C-39 and work with us to make it even stronger at committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is directly because of those experiences over the last 10 years that I think we learned a lot as a government. I also want to say that both our Minister of Labour and our Minister of Employment and Jobs spent the summer talking to labour leaders right across our country about section 107, building Canada strong, and how is it we can actually support them better with respect to reaching a deal at the table, because we know that the best deals are when both sides agree. They are the ones that are sustained and strong. A lot of the things we heard were put into our bill so we can strengthen it and make sure we do not have those strikes ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, there are two key questions there. On the first one, with respect to any type of weakening or dismantling of environmental protections, that is completely not the case. We are not removing in any way any of the impact assessments that examine the environmental effects. What it does do is change who leads the review and how the departments work together, not the standards that apply. Therefore, we are expediting it, but not in any way eliminating any of those standards. If there are suggestions about how we can make that clear or improve that, I am happy to hear about them at committee. With respect to why we have removed the five-year clause around building Canada strong, a lot of these projects take more than five years to build. Our investors need certainty, which is the reason that clause was taken away.

Mr. Speaker, I think for us five years was too long for a decision to be made by our government. The world has so completely changed that we needed to put a completely new process into place. We needed to create a process that would eliminate any type of overlap or duplication. We wanted to create certainty and an easy way for businesses and projects to be able to go ahead. Therefore, while I would say we wanted to have one decision, one project, and one year, I believe we will be able to do the proper amount of assessment and study within that year to be able to make good decisions that are long-standing and good for this country.

Mr. Speaker, feliz día de la independencia de México. For 216 years, Mexico has charted its own path with courage and pride, and for 82 years, Canada has stood beside it as a friend and partner. Today, as global trade shifts beneath our feet, that partnership has never mattered more. Canada is diversifying and strengthening trade with reliable partners, and Mexico is among the most important. This year, one of the largest team Canada trade missions ever travelled to Mexico, and more than 250 Mexican businesses came to Canada to invest and grow. Together, we are building North America into the most competitive, dynamic and resilient economic region in the world. As a proud Mexican Canadian, I say to our community gracias. Their hard work, talent and spirit make Canada stronger every day. The best chapters of our shared story are still ahead. Viva México y viva Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have exciting news. June is Portuguese Heritage Month and today we also celebrate Dia de Portugal, de Camões e das Comunidades Portuguesas. Can the hon. Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages speak to the significance of the Portuguese Canadian community and its contribution to Canada's diversity?

Mr. Speaker, conflicts around the world are intensifying, and Canadians are feeling their impact here at home. Meeting this moment means delivering on our security commitments and reinforcing the alliances that keep us safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently came back from the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sweden. Can the minister please share with the House how Canada is working with our allies to turn our commitments into real capabilities?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, in relation to the motion adopted Wednesday, April 15, 2026, regarding Canada's immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago this month, on April 25, 1974, the Portuguese people ended nearly 40 years of dictatorship, and they did it almost without firing a shot. Soldiers placed carnations in the muzzle of their rifle. People then walked into the streets, and they chose democracy. In my constituency of Davenport, which is home to the largest Portuguese community in Canada, we remember 25 de abril every year, but this year we remember it differently. Democracy is being tested again by authoritarianism, by disinformation and by leaders who treat freedom as inconvenient. The Portuguese diaspora knows this story. It members left a country that gave them too little future, and they came to places like Toronto, where they built new lives and strengthened ours. From their new home country, they also helped keep a freer Portugal alive. Canada stood with them then, and we must continue to stand for democracy now, at home and everywhere it is threatened.

[Member spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:] Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant, I rise on April 23 to celebrate Spanish Language Day, recognized by the United Nations and 21 countries around the world. Spanish is now the most widely spoken non-official language in Canada, connecting more than 1.7 million Canadians to their heritage, identity and traditions. Three provinces and 14 cities have now proclaimed April 23 as Spanish Language Day. Our Prime Minister has called this day “a wonderful opportunity for Canadians of all backgrounds” to learn from our Spanish-speaking communities. Communities across our country have spoken. Let us proclaim April 23 as Spanish Language Day at the federal level. [Member spoke in Spanish] [English]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak in support of Bill C-22, the lawful access act, 2026. When I talk to Davenport residents, the issues they raise with me most often are affordability, housing and jobs. Those remain the top concerns, and I want to be honest about that, but when the conversation turns to safety, what I hear has me worried. Davenport residents tell me they feel uneasy when they see drugs on our streets. They worry about encampments down the block. They are worried about watching another storefront on our main streets board up its windows after a break-in. They have heard of a neighbour's car stolen off the street in the middle of the night. They are unsettled by a number of stories about safety in our community. They are also telling me that they are worried about online scams, which keep getting more sophisticated, the ones that are aimed at their parents, at newcomers, at anyone who answers the phone. They may not always call it public safety, but they feel it and they expect their government to respond. This is exactly what Bill C-22 is about. Under the Mark Carney Liberal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars.

Mr. Speaker, under our federal government, our approach to keeping Canadians safe rests on three pillars: stronger laws; stronger support for the front line, including 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new officers at our borders; and stronger upstream investments in housing, mental health and programs for at-risk youth. Bill C-22 sits inside the first two pillars. It would modernize our laws and give our police the tools they have been asking Parliament for, not for years but for decades. Let me speak plainly about why we need this legislation. Today, the most serious crime does not happen only on our streets. It also happens on our phones and on our apps. It is planned in chat groups. It is carried out across borders, and it is all done in seconds. With child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, extortion, money laundering, auto theft rings, hate-motivated violence and foreign interference, criminals have moved online, and our laws have not yet kept up. Canada is currently the only country in the Five Eyes and the only country in the G7 without a modern lawful access framework. Every one of our closest allies has legal tools that let their police, with judicial oversight, obtain basic digital information during a criminal investigation. Canadian police do not. That gap is not theoretical. It means that Canadian investigations stall. It means that tips from foreign agencies sit unused. It means, in the worst cases, that investigations are simply abandoned before they begin. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection has reported that police-reported online child sexual exploitation incidents rose 374% between 2014 and 2024. In 2024 alone, 94% of online child sexual abuse material did not result in charges, often because police simply could not identify the person behind the screen name, and that is unacceptable. Bill C-22 would help to change that. Let me walk through, in plain language, what Bill C-22 actually does and, just as importantly, what it does not do. I think that when people understand the mechanics, a lot of the worry might fall away. First, the bill would create a simple yes-or-no tool called a confirmation of service demand. Here is how it works. Say police are investigating an extortion case and they have a phone number. They need to know which telephone company, whether it is Rogers, Bell, Telus or anyone else, actually services that number so they know where to send a court order. Under Bill C-22, they can ask that single question: “Do you or do you not service this number?” That is it. There is no name, no address, no content, just yes or no. Today, without this tool, police can spend weeks or months in court, company by company, just to figure out whom to serve. Bill C-22 would let them skip that guessing game and get on with the real investigative work. Second, and this is the critical privacy safeguard, once police know which provider to go to, they still have to go to a judge. A judge has to independently authorize what is called a subscriber information production order before police can get the name and address behind that account. That is judicial oversight. That is the charter at work. This is not police walking away with someone's name on their own say-so. It is police going before a court, making their case, and a judge deciding whether the threshold has been met. Frankly, this is the same kind of information that used to sit in the phone books on our kitchen counters, but because digital identifiers now reveal so much more about us, the Supreme Court has said, rightly, that accessing them requires a warrant, and Bill C-22 respects that. Third, the bill would require our major electronic service providers to actually be capable of responding to a valid court order. This sounds almost unbelievable, but under current Canadian law, there is no such requirement. A judge can issue an order, and a company can simply reply that it is not technically able to provide the information. Bill C-22 would fix that with requirements tailored to each class of provider and with oversight from the independent intelligence commissioner. Fourth, the bill would create a clear legal pathway for Canadian police to work with our allies when crime crosses borders. In 2026, organized crime does not stop at the 49th parallel, and our law enforcement has to be able to move just as quickly. I am very blessed to represent one of the most engaged and most thoughtful communities in this country. Davenport residents care deeply about privacy and the charter. I want them to know their federal government has listened. This is not the first version of the bill. An earlier version was part of Bill C-2 last year. We heard the concerns raised by privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took those concerns seriously, we consulted broadly, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. Here is what changed. Warrantless access to subscriber information is gone, and judicial authorization would be the rule. The definition of “subscriber information” has been narrowed to the basics. The bill would also explicitly protect solicitor-client privilege and medical information. Ministerial orders would require approval by the independent intelligence commissioner. Data retention would be strictly limited to metadata, for a maximum of one year, and not content, not web browsing history and not social media activity. As well, the whole act would come back before Parliament for mandatory review three years after it comes into force. To be absolutely clear, there are no back doors in this bill. Police would not get direct access to anyone's communications. Service providers themselves would retrieve the information, and only after a court has authorized it. This is lawful access, with the emphasis on “lawful”. Last month I had the privilege, as chair of the Toronto Liberal caucus, of joining the federal Minister of Public Safety and Toronto police chief Myron Demkiw at Toronto police headquarters, where the minister spoke about the legislation. Standing with the chief, hearing directly from him about what Toronto police officers face every single day, such as the extortion cases hitting families across the city, the auto theft rings and the online exploitation of our children, one understands very quickly why the bill matters and why the delay has real costs, and it is not just Toronto. There is also support for this bill from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Police Federation and the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police. In closing, to my constituents in Davenport and to the families that have been scammed, the parents worried about their children online and the small business owners who have been threatened with extortion, the bill is for them. To those across Davenport who care fiercely about privacy in the charter, I want them to know that the bill has been built carefully, with judicial oversight at its core and independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, together, the way Canadians expect. Crime has modernized. It is long past time our laws did too. I urge all members of the House, from every party, to send Bill C-22 to committee, to study it, to strengthen it where they can and to get it passed. Canadians have waited many years. They should not have to wait any longer.

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. My colleague who gave the last speech said this, and I think he was right. We introduced Bill C-2. It had much more comprehensive legislation in it, but we came across a lot of concerns, so we pulled back this section of Bill C-2. Then we decided we were going to consult and listen further. We then went to privacy experts, civil liberties groups and members of all parties. We took all the concerns seriously, and we came back with a better, narrower and more carefully built bill. I think we know it is always much better, if we get bills to committee and if we all work with the right intention, that we are open to listening. We want to make sure the bill is as strong as possible.

Mr. Speaker, on privacy, the first thing I would say is that we really spent the time over the last year to get this right. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we met with constitutional experts, privacy groups and members from all parties in the House to try to make sure that we got this legislation right, that we were honouring our charter rights. However, we were also moving forward and making sure that we provided law enforcement, the police and CSIS with the tools they need to be able to counter today's crime. That is the first thing I would say. On the priority of our resources, the attention we are giving to law enforcement, and funding, I would say we are spending a lot of time and money on ensuring public safety in this country. We have introduced a number of pieces of legislation for that cause. We have also put a substantial amount of money into hiring more CBSA agents and more law enforcement agents across the country. The resources are there, and the priority is there as well.

Mr. Speaker, what the member has raised is exactly what was raised by Davenport residents. The bill has been built carefully with judicial oversight at its core and with independent accountability layered throughout. It is not a choice between safety and rights. It is both, and it is the way Canadians expect us to work, by respecting their rights while allowing us to make the laws, enforce the laws and keep our communities right across the country safe.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is such a pleasure for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, to speak in strong support of Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Before I speak to the details of the bill, I want to step back and talk about the moment we are living in. Around the world, democracy is under pressure, authoritarian regimes are growing bolder, independent journalism is being squeezed, trust in public institutions is being deliberately undermined and the information environment that citizens rely on to make free and informed choices is being polluted by foreign states, domestic bad actors and the rapid, unregulated power of artificial intelligence. This is not a distant or theoretical concern. In January of this year, our own Prime Minister stood at the World Economic Forum in Davos and told the world that we are in the midst of “a rupture in the world order, the end of a pleasant fiction, and the beginning of a harsh reality”. He reminded us that the multilateral institutions that middle powers like Canada have relied on for decades are under strain, and he called on countries like ours to build our strength at home and to act together. Democracy does not sustain itself. It depends on strong institutions, an independent justice system, the rule of law, a political system that citizens trust enough to peacefully choose who leads them, and access to independent, fact-based journalism. Every single one of those pillars is under pressure today, and Bill C-25 is part of how Canada is responding. Let me be clear. The bill was not written in a vacuum. It responds directly to the recommendations of the public inquiry into foreign interference, led by the hon. Marie-Josée Hogue; recommendations from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer; and recommendations from the commissioner of Canada Elections. It also builds on the work that was introduced in the last Parliament through Bill C-65. I want to commend our federal government, in particular our minister responsible for democratic institutions, for bringing the legislation forward and for working across party lines to build as much consensus as possible. Our democracy belongs to every Canadian. The laws that protect it should rise above partisanship whenever possible. Now let me turn to what Justice Hogue actually told us. After a 16-month inquiry, more than 150 witnesses and a seven-volume final report, Justice Hogue confirmed that foreign interference in Canadian democracy is real. She documented attempts by hostile foreign states, most prominently the People's Republic of China and India, to interfere at the riding level in our 2019 and 2021 elections. Justice Hogue went further. She pointed to something she considered even more dangerous than the traditional tools of foreign interference. In her own words, not mine, “information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy. It is an existential threat.” This is not a line from social media; it is the considered conclusion of a then sitting justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal, after a year and a half of evidence. She warned us that if we do not address misinformation and disinformation, they have the power to distort our discourse, to change our views and to reshape our society. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, known as NSICOP, which includes members of every recognized party in this place, has reached similar conclusions. NSICOP has documented disinformation as a central tactic used by hostile foreign actors against Canada, and NSICOP has been clear that foreign interference in even one riding is one riding too many. I want to share one more piece of context with the House. I have the enormously great pleasure of serving as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. In that role, I meet regularly with parliamentarians from across the alliance, and I can tell the House that disinformation and hybrid threats come up in virtually every single conversation we have. Last year at the 71st annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Ljubljana, I had the opportunity to ask the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, directly about the application of article 5 in the context of hybrid warfare and cyberwarfare, because these are not abstract questions for our allies. Russia, the People's Republic of China, Iran and North Korea are running sophisticated hybrid campaigns against democracies right now, with disinformation, cyber-attacks and political interference. NATO itself calls these campaigns attempts to “sow doubt in the minds of target populations [and] to destabilise and undermine societies.” Our NATO allies are asking us to do more, and the bill would be Canada's doing more. What would Bill C-25 actually do? First, it would protect the ballot itself. It would create a new offence for intentionally spreading false information about the voting process to disrupt an election. It would criminalize tampering with the computer systems that run our elections. For the first time, it would criminalize digital impersonation and the use of AI-generated deepfakes to impersonate candidates, the Chief Electoral Officer or other election officials. In an era when a convincing fake video can be produced in minutes and shared with millions of people in hours, this protection is long overdue. Second, it would close the doors on foreign and dark money. It would prohibit anonymous and untraceable contributions, including cryptocurrency, prepaid gift cards and money orders. It would strengthen the rules on third parties. It would prevent foreign entities from funnelling money into our politics through Canadian intermediaries. Critically, it would extend these protections to nomination and leadership contests, which Justice Hogue identified as real points of vulnerability. Third, it would give the commissioner of Elections Canada enforcement tools she has asked for: higher penalties, the power to summon witnesses and compel evidence without clogging up our courts, the ability to co-operate with international partners, and a specific requirement that the commissioner consider foreign interference when determining penalties. These are tools our election watchdog needs, and experts have been calling for them for years. Fourth, the bill would protect candidates and election workers themselves, because threats to our democracy are not abstract. They are directed at real people, including candidates, returning officers and their families, who increasingly face harassment and intimidation. Fifth, it would finally establish a comprehensive privacy regime for federal political parties. This has been recommended for years by the Privacy Commissioner and by the Chief Electoral Officer, and it is time we got it done. I want to be clear with the House. The bill is a necessary step but not the final step. Justice Hogue has called for a dedicated body to monitor disinformation. The Chief Electoral Officer has called for transparency labels on AI-generated election content. Our NATO allies are asking us to build whole-of-society resilience that includes media literacy, support for independent journalism, accountability for platforms, and deeper international co-operation. We will need to keep going. We will need to keep updating our laws as the threats evolve. We will need to keep doing this together, across party lines, because the adversaries trying to weaken Canadian democracy do not care which party any of us belongs to. They want to weaken us all. I commend our government for bringing forward Bill C-25. I urge every member of the House, from every party, to support it. I urge every one of us to recognize that defending Canadian democracy is not a one-time vote. It is an ongoing responsibility, one that this generation of parliamentarians has been asked to carry. Our democracy is strong, but it is not invulnerable. Canada is worth protecting. Our democracy is worth protecting. The residents of Davenport and of every riding in the country are counting on us to do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his participation in providing some input into Bill C-25. I think it is enormously important that we work across party lines. I am going to focus on the bill. The government is taking action to ensure that Canadians continue to have confidence in the integrity of our elections, and to further strengthen our democratic institutions in response to the rising threats being faced by countries around the world. This is just one of the many steps we need to be taking. There are about 29 changes being proposed in Bill C-25. We have more to do.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things about the Canada Elections Act is that we have done a fairly good job over time of making sure that we are constantly updating it to meet the threats of the moment. Deepfakes are definitely one of the threats of the moment. I am very pleased that our minister responsible for democratic institutions has acted fast and has worked in coordination across party lines to actually put some protections in the new bill in order for us to address this new threat. We need to continue to be vigilant and to be aware of the new threats coming our way, so we can continue to make sure we are protecting our elections and democracy here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as that has nothing to do with Bill C-25, which is before us right now, I will give a very general comment. Floor crossing has happened on both sides of the bench, and I think it has been part of our parliamentary tradition. However, today I am very pleased that our minister has introduced formally into the House Bill C-25. It is the strong and free elections act. It proposes targeted priority amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would further protect and secure Canada's elections.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is indeed right. The per-vote subsidy, as the main political party funding reform, is not in the bill. In the bill, we focus on political financing. We are trying to prevent foreign and dark money from getting into our political system. As I mentioned in my speech, we have many opportunities to continue to improve our democracy, to continue to improve the Canada Elections Act, to continue to fight and to put in tools and measures that would counter disinformation and misinformation. I mentioned a number of them in my speech, and I look forward to the work ahead.