Debates of April 16th, 2026

Strong and Free Elections Act

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his fluent and excellent French. My colleagues know that, in my speech, I emphasized the importance of the responsibility of official agents. For quite some time now, every candidate should have had a recognized official agent. However, that comes with a requirement to demonstrate that the person is qualified and authorized. That comes with responsibilities. I am certain that, given the way the bill is drafted right now, we will avoid having straw men or imposters posing as official agents for the candidates.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation for acknowledging in his speech that there is sometimes a risk of influence peddling in the political fundraising process that could be problematic and that it could even go so far as to threaten the integrity of government decisions or, at the very least, the electoral process. In that context, I want to mention that my colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where he once accused me of fundraising through the Bloc Québécois website when I was speaking out against Driver Inc. However, we eventually learned from the media that the shoe was on the other foot. It was the Liberal Party that allegedly received tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars from owners of Driver Inc. companies.

I would like to know whether my colleague intends to apologize to me for his false accusations and whether he is concerned about what is happening in his party, namely that people are trying to influence policies and that this is not being done for the good of the public.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that we have the most rigorous systems in place for political funding and election campaign financing. During an election campaign, it is our responsibility, when appointing an official agent, to comply with the rules and to abide by the law. I have been here since 2015, abiding by the law with no missteps whatsoever despite all the funding I have received since 2015. I aim to set an example in the House.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest priorities we have as parliamentarians is safeguarding our democracy. Without free and fair elections with voters able to choose for themselves whom to support, what we do here and say is meaningless. Ensuring that the way we conduct elections is free from malicious control is one of the most important things we can do. Protecting democratic principles is not a partisan issue. Those on the left, those on the right and those in between are in agreement. We trust people to make the right choice as long as they have the opportunity to do so in a setting where the influence of those with bad intent has been lessened. I say lessened because, even with our best efforts, there are always going to be those, especially in foreign governments, who are going to attempt to interfere with our political electoral process. Governments elsewhere may have a different agenda from Canada's. They will naturally want, if possible, to shape our way of thinking. Dealing with those attempts is one of the reasons for Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act.

Before I forget, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

Put simply, this bill would, among other things, establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including, in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, accepting or offering a bribe, unauthorized use of a computer and making or publishing false or misleading information respecting elections and the candidate nomination process. The bill would establish new prohibitions in relation to voting in a nomination contest or leadership contest; prohibit the acceptance or use of certain contributions by political entities and third parties, including from anonymous sources; and it would provide for new requirements relating to political parties' policies for the protection of personal information.

Combatting foreign interference has become a bigger challenge in recent years as so many of us get our information online. Disinformation and misinformation run rampant. Truth is hard to find. We can be subtly shaped without even realizing it. Of course, we have always been subject to foreign influence. Fifty years ago, it was the prevalence of American television programming that was a major concern. Influencing the culture and shifting it to our direction is something we need to be aware of, but it is the effort of foreign governments, not cultural influencers, that is what we are looking at with this legislation; though sometimes, admittedly, governments can be behind the cultural influencers. We have had inquiries. The results have been, in a way, frustrating. We know that there have been attempts at foreign interference in our elections and our nomination contests, perhaps even in the leadership races. However, we do not know with any certainty whether the interference has changed the outcome of the results of any particular riding. We can say, though, that it was the intent to do so.

Conservatives have long called for the strengthening of protections against foreign interference, including during leadership and nomination contests. It is good to see that Bill C-25 would address this issue. It is good to see that this legislation would change the Canada Elections Act respecting nomination contests and leadership contests. It makes sense to prohibit foreigners and foreign entities from unduly influencing an elector to vote or to refrain from voting in a nomination or leadership contest. We want Canadians to make their choices without interference from foreign capitals.

It also makes sense to prohibit persons and entities from selling advertising space to a foreign entity to transmit a message to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for a particular nomination contestant or leadership contestant. The only real question is why we have not done this sooner. Given all that we have heard about foreign interference in the past few years, I am surprised that the government has not acted with more speed on this matter.

I am also surprised that we had not previously thought about the necessity of prohibiting people from offering a bribe to influence how a person votes in a nomination or leadership contest. We already make it an offence to offer or accept a bribe during an election, so it makes sense that we extend this to the nomination and leadership contests that are such an important part of our democracy.

Like all members in the House, I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents on issues of the day. A lot of those letters and emails are complaints about Liberal policies. I understand that. I have a few complaints about Liberal policies myself. Too often, though, the complaints are based on wild theories circulating on the Internet that have no basis in truth. Misinformation and disinformation is running rampant. I am not sure that we will ever be able to eliminate it, but we can try.

The bill would create a new offence for making or publishing, with the intention of affecting the results or disrupting the conduct of an election, a statement that they know is false or misleading. That makes sense to me. Truth is important. Those who are lying for political gain need to be exposed and punished.

The bill would also bring in the “unauthorized use of a computer” offence to include “disrupting the conduct of an election” as opposed to solely affecting the results of an election. That, to me, is a better reflection of reality and perhaps easier to prove.

Expanding the scope to what is captured as a false or misleading publication and impersonation to include AI and deepfakes also makes sense. One can find both the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition online, along with Hollywood celebrities, pushing various get-rich-quick schemes. We know those are fake, but they can be convincing. As artificial intelligence software improves, it will get even harder to spot the difference between real and fake.

During an election campaign, these deepfake images could be used for political advantage. It is important for the integrity of the election process to clamp down on them. As politicians, we need to make sure that our own houses are in order. We need to adhere to the highest standards, not just for public confidence in the process, but because it is the right thing to do.

Requiring political parties to establish a more comprehensive policy for the protection of personal information than is currently provided for under the act is important. The public needs to see that we are holding ourselves to the highest standards. That means working harder to safeguard electors' personal information under the party's control and making sure that we protect the privacy of those whose information we hold. We need to lead by example.

As parliamentarians, it is vital that we address these issues. We want free and fair elections and a democracy that is the envy the world, not one riddled with foreign interference.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by apologizing. I, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, apologize for misinterpreting the Standing Orders earlier today during debate. I wanted to make a formal apology. Members are allowed to refer to themselves in the third person but may not name other members when speaking about them.

I want to thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him on different committees. I think we have reached a consensus of sorts on Bill C‑25 in that we would all like it to be studied it in committee. We want our democratic process to be made even stronger and more impervious to threats of foreign interference.

That said, Bill C‑25 may be missing one thing: public funding for political parties. I am raising the matter again. The Bloc Québécois believes that public funding should be based on votes, not on donor contributions, because that would make it easier to protect against foreign interference.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also enjoy working with the hon. member on several committees.

We are talking about international interference in Canadian politics, and here we are trying to interfere with how Canadians want to donate and which party they choose to support. I disagree with the hon. member on that point. The bill is going to committee, and at committee there will be room for more suggestions and recommendations that could get through. In my opinion, we are trying to prevent interference in our electoral system from outside and here we are interfering with the way Canadians support political parties on the inside. I think there is a contradiction there.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, our legislative framework needs to evolve whenever new issues arise.

We see that with Bill C‑25, for which there is a bit of consensus in the House, based on what I am hearing. In particular, I am thinking of the issues of addressing foreign interference, strengthening the rules for nominations, implementing stricter rules on political fundraising and preventing disruptive activities when it comes to protecting elections. One example is also the longest ballot committee, which we have seen in action in various by-elections and general elections in recent years.

I want to ask my colleague why we should review the Canada Elections Act on a regular basis and ensure that we are addressing emerging issues and responding to them in a collaborative way, as we are doing now.

I also want my colleague to clarify whether he agrees that the bill is almost ready to go to committee so that we can continue studying it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say it is too late that the government brought this up after four elections. I think this is very necessary to make sure that we have a perfect, very transparent electoral process. I believe the bill will go to committee. It has to go to committee, where it will be studied more and examined better to get the best results out of it.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what my colleague had to say today specifically around something my constituents are concerned about, as are his, which is the delay in the implementation of the foreign interference registry, which is really important, as we have heard today, to make this bill as efficient and good as possible. I would like him to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is delayed in bringing this forward and yet has already moved forward with the law enforcement agreement with China, which causes the kind of concern he mentioned in his speech.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, not even a week goes by that I do not hear from my constituents about this issue. Canadians are very concerned about international interference in our elections. There were studies and there were efforts to get this through, but it has not been implemented. The government has not moved on it. We hope that with this bill, it will get more serious and act in a responsible way to get this through, because we cannot afford any more interference in our electoral system.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the sorcerer's apprentice scene from Fantasia is my mother's favourite. The apprentice arrives, gains access to powerful tools and tries to harness them to make his work easier. He enchants a broom to carry water. At first, it works. The buckets fill and the work is done for him. Then it does not stop. The water keeps pouring. He tries to fix it, but he cannot undo the spell. In panic, he chops the broom in two, only to create more brooms, more buckets and more water. What began as a clever solution quickly becomes something he cannot control and the room begins to flood.

I have been thinking about that story as we debate Bill C-25 because there are parts in this bill that respond to the concerns I hear in my communities. Conservatives have long called for measures to deter abuses like the longest ballot campaigns. We have called for stronger protections against foreign interference, including in leadership and nomination contests. The changes in Bill C-25 start to address the concerns that we have raised around foreign money influencing Canadian elections, and we support these changes. There are a few amendments we think would be prudent: Ballot boxes should be securely stored when polling stations are closed, under triple lock and key. The scope of the expanded offence of making false statements about the results of an election could be clearer. The financial penalties proposed in the bill could be higher.

If we were in the early stages of the sorcerer's apprentice where the brooms were doing their jobs and the buckets were filling as intended, those changes might be enough to restore Canadians' faith in our institutions, but that is not where we are. In the wake of floor crossings and growing regional alienation, there are concerns about fairness in how resources are distributed and a rising sense that decisions are being made behind closed doors for the personal gain of those doing the deciding. For some Canadians, the brooms are everywhere, the buckets are overflowing, and those Canadians are rapidly losing confidence.

In British Columbia, people notice when elections are called before our polls have even closed. They notice when our tax dollars flow east, but do not come back to fund our infrastructure, our hospitals and our communities. With the recent floor crossings, a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are asking me why they should bother voting.

When people start questioning whether their vote matters, we should all take notice because that is not frustration with a single policy or a single party. It is indicative of something deeper, a feeling that their voice no longer carries weight, that the outcome is predetermined elsewhere, that our democracy is not quite functioning as it should. It may be a minority of voices at this point, but once that feeling takes hold, it is very difficult to reverse. People do not disengage all at once. They disengage step by step. First, they question. Then, they doubt. Eventually, they go quiet and stop participating altogether.

This is not a problem we can regulate away. It is a problem we have to address through how we conduct ourselves as a democracy. In that context, Bill C-25 does some very valuable tinkering around the edges, but it fails to truly meet the moment that we are in.

I have spoken to many of these concerned Canadians. The gap between this Parliament and those agnostics is fundamentally one of trust: trust that decision-makers really see their struggles and understand their hopes and dreams, trust that ministers will do their best to serve Canadians and not enrich themselves along the way. Trust that the person they elected is still who they said they were when they were asking for their vote.

If we are, as the Prime Minister has said, living through a moment of rupture, vulnerable to the whims of a hostile America, then this is a time when Canada needs its best ideas to rise to the top. That does not happen by accident. It happens when ideas are tested, challenged and improved upon through open and rigorous debate. An environment where opposition questions are treated as obstruction is not one where strong ideas can emerge. It is one where the weak ideas go untested. When questions are discouraged, when those who ask them are mocked in this chamber, when scrutiny is dismissed, we materially increase the risk of getting it wrong.

It is in the national interest to have an opposition that can ask hard questions. It is nation building to stress-test policy proposals in order to find gaps, unintended consequences and missed opportunities. That is how policies are strengthened. That is how we avoid costly mistakes. That is how we move our country forward.

The moment that we accept the frame that our society is divided into two enemy camps, one virtuous and one irredeemably wrong, our society loses something that is mission-critical. Probing, questioning and challenging are what a healthy democracy depends on. In moments like this, where we need to find and embrace our best ideas, we should be making more room for opposition and questioning, not less. Canada's success depends on every member of this House being able to serve their constituents fully, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. That is how we truly arrive at the best ideas. It is not by protecting them from criticism, but by putting them under pressure and seeing what holds.

Former Prime Minister Diefenbaker was known for the sentiment that there is no bad seat in the House of Commons. Every seat in this place carries equal responsibility and legitimacy, regardless of whether its member sits in government or opposition. This week, there is a much-needed reminder that MPs are here to put Canada first, not to seek power for themselves. A government that serves only the ridings it holds weakens the country and undermines our collective purpose. It divides Canadians and pits region against region. A system that discourages questioning weakens its ability to correct itself.

In Canada today, a new Prime Minister has arrived on the scene much like the sorcerer's apprentice. He has gained access to powerful tools, and I will concede that he has harnessed them effectively to achieve the majority government that he insists will make his work easier. He has enchanted a certain demographic, the media and some floor-crossers to wield brooms, fill buckets and carry water.

However, there are lessons to be learned from the sorcerer's apprentice to ensure the water does not turn into a flood and to stem the tide of disappointment that Canadians are expressing about behaviour in this place. Any MP who cannot effectively represent their riding from any seat in this House has no business being here. Any government that requires MPs to cross the floor to provide for their ridings is one that undermines the foundations of democracy and should be summarily dispatched at the ballot box.

I implore the Prime Minister to recognize these two simple principles: embrace the value of the opposition, especially in this moment, and answer the questions we ask in question period. Stop trying to enchant the brooms and the buckets and be a government that makes space for all Canadians, regardless of the colour of their party banner. If we do that, the best ideas will rise to the top and we will be able to move this country forward.

We need the government to work with us to strengthen Bill C-25 in committee. If the government does that, then Bill C-25 might help restore Canadians' faith in our system. It might help bring down the temperature and rebuild trust. However, if it does not, we should not be surprised if the brooms and the buckets keep multiplying and the water keeps rising until the floods are upon us.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that excellent speech. We were just at the procedure and House affairs committee where we were discussing civic resilience, a study that is currently under way there.

In the theme of Bill C-25 and the study that is ongoing at PROC about civic resilience, what does it mean to only have one set of voices and one set of ideas being pushed? What kind of message does that send to Canadians who might disagree? What kind of health does that promote within our Canadian society?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I knock on doors and I talk to people in my community, there is a sentiment that generally gets all the heads nodding. It is the idea that Ottawa feels very far away right now from those out on the west coast on Vancouver Island. We feel disconnected in a lot of ways from the black box that happens in Ottawa.

There was a point made in committee this morning, which was the idea that civic resilience is something that bridges the distance between the people and government. There is a lesson that comes out of this and I would urge the government, I would urge the House, to make room for those voices and to spend more time explaining to Canadians what we are doing in this place and why. I think that, along with the changes being proposed in Bill C-25, would go a long way to gaining support.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest question I have been asked over the last couple of weeks, and years, when it comes to democracy is with respect to the longest ballot committee. That is something that has weighed on people. It has made it very difficult for them to cast their ballot in a proper way. Some ballots have been a metre long. Therefore, I would ask my colleague if this bill addresses that issue.

Also, we cannot discuss democracy right now without discussing members crossing the floor. People have been losing faith in our democracy when they vote for a person from a particular party and then that person crosses the floor. I think it is a disservice to the people who sent them to Ottawa. I ask my colleague to comment on that as well.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, because it highlights where we are heading and what we still need to do.

Bill C-25 addresses the issue of the longest ballot in a number of ways. However, the truth is that it does not matter how many spots are on a ballot or how short it is if the people who are casting their vote do not have confidence that the House will respect their choice and enable the member they elect to serve from any seat in the House and provide for their riding in all circumstances. That is where I think we have work to do. I look forward to working with the government to restore that confidence in Canada.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was the one who was speaking, I would like to take this opportunity to note that they were serving Nanaimo bars in the lobby today. I do not know whether this is a coincidence or a personal request.

All joking aside, I have a question for my colleague. We are talking about democracy today, which is important. We are all here to represent our constituents. We have a role in this democracy, and it is a role entrusted to us by our constituents. Recently, there have been a significant number of people crossing the floor, people who have moved from the Conservative benches to the Liberal benches, even though that is not the mandate given to them by their constituents.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of people who abandon the mandate given to them by the people who vote for them.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this excellent question.

It is a difficult thing to see someone we have spoken to and shared lots of good conversations and ideas with decide they are no longer on our team. That said, it is one of the fundamental issues in our democracy today. We are living in a world where people are trying to create a distance that does not always exist. We have a lot in common. We need to work together. We need to have every seat in this House matter.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

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?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

She clearly illustrated how this bill strengthens our election laws. Our election system in Canada is fair and Canadians have confidence in it. To maintain that confidence, our legislative framework must evolve in response to the concerns of the day.

For example, there is a proposal to introduce a new ban on impersonation using deepfakes, or in other words, the use of artificial intelligence to create fake images and make it appear as though a person has said or done something, even though the image is not of the actual person. This type of disinformation can be harmful to democracy.

I invite my colleague to explain why it is so important to take these modern issues into account when updating our election laws.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just mentioned protecting democracy. I would like to hear what her views are on a member's crossing the floor and abandoning 53% of the vote in her riding.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one recommendation from Madam Justice Hogue that is not in Bill C-25 to confront foreign interference but that I would love to see in Bill C-25, was to restore the political finance reforms that were introduced originally by a former prime minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien.

Does my friend from Davenport agree that the bill would be strengthened if we were to bring back the per-vote subsidy that also encouraged voters to vote for the party of their choice even in ridings that were regarded as safe for another party?