THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 3, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:19 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026; and examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to legal and constitutional matters generally.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. My name is David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan and the chair of this committee. I now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Mohamed: Good afternoon. Senator Farah Mohamed from Ontario, sitting in for Senator Dhillon, and I’m the sponsor of Bill C-25.
Senator Simons: Senator Paula Simons, Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Ross: Senator Krista Ross from New Brunswick, and I’m here on behalf of Senator Paul Prosper.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I am Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia. I represent Senator Tannas.
Senator Saint-Germain: I am Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We’re meeting today in public to consider two draft reports. We have the first hour set aside for discussion of the eighth report, which is in draft form, on our pre-study of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026. Again, this would be the eighth report of the committee. It was circulated in advance. I’ll remind senators that we can now discuss the contents of the report and, if it meets your satisfaction, I will present this report. Let’s get this done before the vote is called.
The report was presented in draft form; the steering committee looked at it in advance. We made changes and accepted some comments, particularly from Senator Batters, to accommodate some concerns she had. We believe we have accommodated those concerns.
I’m now open to discussion regarding the contents of the report for the purposes of accepting the report and allowing me to present the report to the chamber tomorrow.
Does any senator have concerns or questions?
Senator Mohamed: Mr. Chair, would you like me to run through per paragraph and stop or run through all of them?
The Chair: How many are there?
Senator Mohamed: I don’t have anything on paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4, but I have something on paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The Chair: Okay, go ahead. Let’s do paragraph 5.
Senator Mohamed: For the sake of accuracy, I wonder if the committee would be open to saying “extended by 15 minutes” instead of “two-hour meetings.” The meeting on May 27 was not, in fact, two hours but two hours and 15 minutes. On May 28, it was extended by one hour, so it actually would have been three hours.
That is for the sake of accuracy.
The Chair: What is the exact wording you’re proposing?
Senator Mohamed: It is:
The committee studied the subject matter of Bill C-25 over the course of two meetings on May 27 and May 28.
Therefore, you either take out the “two hours” or you put in the actual times of the meetings.
The Chair: So it is: “. . . the course of two meetings, May 27 and May 28, both of which were extended.”
Senator Mohamed: Yes, that would be preferred.
The Chair: Do you want the exact times?
Senator Mohamed: No.
Senator Saint-Germain: I concur with that, since it’s factual. However, I am advised that we are required to go to the Senate Chamber now for the vote.
The Chair: On this point, then, is there any more discussion on this paragraph?
Okay, we’ll now suspend the committee to attend the vote in the chamber.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we are studying the draft report of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026. This is the draft eighth report. It has four pages and nine paragraphs. We started the meeting, and Senator Mohamed drew attention to paragraph 5 in the first sentence. We agreed to amend it on her recommendation to read:
The committee studied the subject matter of Bill C-25 over the course of two meetings on May 27, 2026 and May 28, 2026, both of which were extended.
So we didn’t put a time. We just said they both were extended. That’s where we’re at.
Senator Batters: When our steering committee was looking at the draft of this, the reason I suggested putting in “two two-hour meetings” is because, in addition to the days that we have meetings, we usually put the total number of hours or something like that. So the reason I put “two two-hour meetings” is that that was the time frame with actual witnesses, and then, yes, for one meeting, we had additional time that was dealing with the potential drafting of the report and that sort of thing.
The Chair: Do you want to put the exact hours?
Senator Batters: Usually, we do say how many hours, and it’s helpful.
The Chair: What were the exact hours, Senator Mohamed, in total?
Senator Mohamed: I believe on May 27, it was extended by 15 minutes, and on May 28, it was extended by one hour. But I would ask the team to make sure I don’t have that switched around.
The Chair: The clerk said it’s four hours and 35 minutes. It’s a total of four hours and 35 minutes. Is everyone in agreement with that, then?
An Hon. Senator: I thought it was five hours.
Senator Mohamed: I thought it was five hours, but I might be wrong.
The Chair: We didn’t meet the full time on the last hour, I think. So this is very precise. Any further comments on paragraph 5? Then, Senator Mohamed, you had — we will just go with Senator Mohamed, and then we will go to Senator Saint-Germain, Senator Simons and Senator Batters.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On paragraph 7, beginning with “Bill C-25,” if you go down about halfway after Annotation 3, it states:
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and other privacy experts testified that Bill C-25 does not adequately address the serious concerns that were raised . . . .
To ensure a balance, my suggestion would be to replace that part with:
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and other witnesses testified that Bill C-25 addresses many but not all of the concerns that were raised in evidence . . . .
And then it continues.
The Chair: Okay. So it’s “many but not all.”
Senator Mohamed: It is:
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and other witnesses testified that Bill C-25 addresses many but not all of the concerns that were raised in evidence . . . .
The Chair: Okay. On those suggested words, Senator Simons is first and then Senator Pate.
Senator Simons: I don’t know that I would characterize them as saying “many.” Perhaps it is “some.” But not “many.” Indeed, we heard from witnesses who felt that they were not addressed substantively at all.
Senator Pate: I was going to say it’s a bit stronger than that, as I think we had very strong evidence from those who have the expertise in this area that they weren’t addressed. So I’m fine with “some,” but I think it was even stronger than that. I’m fine with how it is written right now.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: In line 6 of paragraph 7 of the French version, just before “le projet de loi C-4,” I believe there should be a space: “récemment apportés audit rapport.”
[English]
The Chair: Translation?
Senator Saint-Germain: No, it’s good in French.
[Translation]
That is a legal term.
Senator Aucoin: How does that sound?
Senator Saint-Germain: It’s absolutely fine, yes.
Senator Aucoin: Okay. Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain.
Senator Saint-Germain: The Quebecer.
[English]
Senator Aucoin: Okay. I’m happy with the expert Senator Saint-Germain.
The Chair: All right. So does anyone have any comments about “many but not all”? Or “some but not all”? Or the original wording? I’m going to do it this way. How many wish to see the original wording maintained? Did you want to make a comment, Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: No comment. I’m voting for the original wording.
The Chair: Original wording. Let’s count them, then. Who wants the original wording? One, two, three, four, five, six and seven not against the original wording.
Senator Batters: Plus another option of “some but not all.”
Senator Simons: Perhaps a count of hands for “some.”
The Chair: How many for “some”? One and two.
Senator Mohamed: Sorry, “many” was the original wording for me.
The Chair: So who wants “some,” just to be clear? Who wants “many”? The way I see it, the original wording wins.
Senator Duncan: I just wanted to ask a question. Senator Mohamed said, in her change, “The Privacy Commissioner of Canada and other witnesses . . . .” It currently reads, “other privacy experts.” Should it be “other witnesses” or “other privacy experts”? It’s just a point of clarification.
The Chair: Well, they were all privacy experts.
Senator Duncan: Okay.
Senator Pate: I was going to say that the only others who didn’t were the party folks, right?
The Chair: They never came.
Senator Pate: That’s right.
The Chair: So far, we’re for the original wording. What is your next change that you would like to go to, Senator Mohamed?
Senator Mohamed: Just a clarification on something, chair. What is the number for the original wording? I’m just trying to figure out if I go —
The Chair: Seven is the number I counted.
Senator Mohamed: Thank you. On page 3, paragraph 8, it’s the bottom part of that paragraph starting with:
Nor did the committee have the opportunity to hear from representatives of any federal political parties, thereby missing key stakeholder perspectives.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chair, that the political parties were invited but could not attend because of the timing, and I wonder if we might note that.
The Chair: How would you like it noted?
Senator Mohamed: It is:
Nor did the committee have the opportunity to hear from representatives of any federal political parties; they were invited but could not attend because of timing.
I just want to be factual about it being because of scheduling or whatever the proper wording is. I would say because of scheduling; that’s my understanding.
The Chair: You would like to add the sentence “They were invited but were unable to attend due to their personal scheduling.”
Senator Mohamed: My understanding is that they were appearing in a court case and could not be here on that day. In the interests of fairness and accuracy, I think it’s important to note why they were not here. They didn’t choose to not be here.
The Chair: It is: “They were invited but were unable to attend due to scheduling.” Those were the words you said. Okay.
Senator Saint-Germain: I had the same proposed amendment for paragraph 8.
The Chair: What is your amendment, Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: It is exactly the same, but I would add, “. . . were not able to attend due to the committee’s schedule.”
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Pate: It is true, but the committee schedule is dictated by us being sent this to do within a very constrained time frame. If we want it factual, we can say the pre-study was short. We had limited time, and the political parties were not able to appear within that time frame.
Senator Saint-Germain: In the same paragraph, I have an additional amendment that would notably address Senator Pate’s concern.
When we say, “regrettably, the truncated nature,” I don’t like this because it is very pejorative. We should say something like, “The committee had limited time to give consideration to these important issues,” and then we adapt it in French. I don’t believe that our study was truncated. This is page 3, paragraph 8, line 6.
The Chair: I didn’t realize where you were. Say that again, please.
Senator Saint-Germain: It is: “Regrettably, the committee had limited time to give consideration to these important issues.” We would adapt it in French, and I believe that this addresses Senator Pate’s concern, since it is in the same paragraph.
Senator Ross: To clarify, if the witnesses could not appear, they would have had the opportunity to submit written submissions to the committee? They had an opportunity to present their —
The Chair: Same reason, it was time sensitive. They were unable to produce a report for our consideration. We just had two days. This was truncated; that’s my word.
Senator Batters: On this, yes, it was truncated. We were given a government deadline that we had to have our report in within a very short time frame. We had minimal time to not only call witnesses but also hear from them. We basically had one hour to offer to that grouping of witnesses. I don’t view the word “truncated” as a pejorative word; it is true. It was truncated. It would have been longer if we had been able to have longer to report this pre-study back to the chamber, but given that we have an extremely tight time frame — and I believe tomorrow is our date that we are supposed to have this reported back to the chamber — that is why it was truncated.
As far as those particular witnesses, yes, it was an extremely short time frame. The court cases were dealing with this issue. That is why they were occupied with that other thing and it’s why they were all occupied by that other thing, and it would not have been ideal for them to provide us with something in writing. It was actually a good exchange of views when we had them all before us on the Part 4 of Bill C-4 issue, and that is why we wanted to have them in front of us to ask them questions and have an exchange rather than a written brief of any kind.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Mohamed: Mr. Chair, I understand very much how busy this committee is, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that there was a two-week break when the committee could have called back the committee, as the Human Rights Committee did with Bill C-9, and heard from witnesses. I don’t think it is a fair characterization to say it was truncated unless it’s acknowledged that the committee chose not to use that time.
So if you’re going to say “truncated,” I think it needs to be acknowledged that there was an opportunity to meet before the report was submitted, and maybe during those two weeks, the parties could have appeared. We don’t know that they couldn’t have.
The Chair: Is that accurate?
Senator Batters: I’m not even sure if it had been referred to here yet. I don’t think it had been. Also, there are many members of this committee who are members of the Human Rights Committee, as the chair is, certainly, and they had many other different duties during that time frame. As well, we were still dealing with Bill C-14 or dealing with the report on Bill C-14 and the amendments.
As the critic of Bill C-14, that was something I had to devote a fair bit of my attention to because I had to have my third reading speech ready to go for right after that was done.
Senator Simons: I’m trying to recall and perhaps one of our staff can remind me. We passed a motion in the chamber for us to do a pre-study. Was that pre-study vote before or after the break?
The Chair: It was referred to our committee on May 7.
Senator Simons: For us to come during a break week for a pre-study would have been quite extraordinary for a bill that wasn’t even out of the House yet.
The Chair: Did steering even consider this? Steering didn’t even consider it.
Senator Batters: We were still dealing with Bill C-14 in that time frame. We were drafting a report.
The Chair: Yes. I don’t think that is an accurate assessment there, Senator Mohamed.
Senator Mohamed: I don’t want to be too argumentative, but if something is important, as we all think this is, and if there is an opportunity for a committee to add additional meeting time, that is at the discretion of the committee. The committee is meant to be the master of its own schedule is my understanding.
The Chair: And we are. We didn’t get this until Thursday, May 7, which was the start of the break week. Everyone was gone by Thursday night.
You thought we should have a steering committee meeting to call everybody back in that two-week period? Really?
Senator Mohamed: Mr. Chair, all I can do is offer my observations and my strong objection to truncated —
The Chair: I’ll be more neutral, sorry.
Senator Batters: During the break week, we were finalizing and preparing the report on Bill C-14, which the government said was a top priority in terms of getting that into the chamber as soon as possible. We had to make sure that was ready to go to be able to deal with it during the week right after coming back.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I don’t know if Senator Mohamed’s suggestions are still on the table, compared to what Senator Saint-Germain said.
I wasn’t there. However, I’d like to make a suggestion. In French, we say “malheureusement,” whereas in English, we use the word “truncated.” It says, and this is important: “Regrettably, the truncated nature of the pre-study left the committee with insufficient time to give due consideration to these important issues.” If we remove the next sentence, or forget it’s there and go to the next sentence, then it would say immediately after that the committee also didn’t have the opportunity . . . .
I don’t know if it’s right to speculate on why people didn’t come, unless they sent you a written response to inform you they were too busy and didn’t have time to appear. We know the allotted time was very short. You said it earlier: The allotted time was short, we didn’t have time to wait and, unfortunately, we didn’t have a chance to hear from the political parties.
If you take the sentence out between the two, it flows. That’s a suggestion.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. The in-between sentence begins with “for example.” Senator Aucoin —
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I don’t mean physically removing it. I mean, if you read it, it flows very well.
[English]
The Chair: I agree, but are you saying to leave the “for example” sentence in its place, ultimately, because it is the cumulative effect of the whole paragraph? Okay.
So that would —
Senator Saint-Germain: In terms of my amendment, I heard it is the fairest one.
The Chair: Yes.
Let’s deal with this. Senator Aucoin is effectively saying to leave the paragraphs as they are and see the whole sentence; it tells the whole story and narrative in a cumulative form.
Before we deal with that, I’m going to deal with Senator Saint-Germain’s intervention, but I see Senator Simons wishes to intervene.
Senator Simons: In terms of “truncated,” we could use a softer word, but I don’t think we want to make it sound like we had all the time in the world due to the short or shortened nature of the pre-study.
Senator Pate: I don’t disagree with that characterization, but I think we have said a number of times that the time frames we’ve been given are really problematic. “Truncated” sends a very clear message, so I’m okay with using “truncated” and saying, “When you send us stuff and you tell us to do a pre-study and you want it really fast, there are these limitations on what we can do.”
Senator Mohamed: Can we meet halfway and perhaps start with the sentence that says, “The pre-study left the committee with insufficient time . . . .” instead of “regrettably”? There is a difference of opinion on whether the time could have been used differently.
Can we find some middle ground and perhaps take out that first part — “regrettably, the truncated nature of” — and begin it at “the pre-study”? Would that be satisfactory to everyone?
Senator Batters: I’m personally not really all that inclined to use softer language given that recently on Bill C-16, the Minister of Justice accused us in the media that, if we didn’t handle his Bill C-16 within a week or two in the Senate and at this committee, we would be potentially costing Canadians lives.
I think that “truncated” is required here to send a clear message.
The Chair: Are there more discussion points? I’m probably going to ask whether this whole paragraph stays as it’s written, which is what I’m hearing from a number of senators not offering any compromise.
The only thing is: “They were invited but were unable to attend due to scheduling.”
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I don’t know in English, but in French, the word “tronquer” is quite serious. I’m uncomfortable with the word because it’s as if, as a member of this committee, I participate in a truncated exercise. The word “tronquer” is also pejorative to committee members. I’m uncomfortable with the word because we agreed to participate in a process that is now being described as truncated, so we’re responsible. That’s what makes me uncomfortable. In French, that’s what the word “tronquer” means. When it comes to accountability, I feel uncomfortable using that word as a member of this committee. It may be different in English, but in French, that word is very pejorative and it also tarnishes our reputation. I hope we can find another word, but I’m ethically uneasy with this word as it also touches on my responsibility as a member of this committee.
[English]
The Chair: All right. In English, “truncated” may not have that same degree; I don’t think it does. Is there another word in French that would soften it up? Do you have another word in French?
Dana Phillips, Analyst, Library of Parliament: The French says sommaire.
The Chair: So the word “truncated” doesn’t appear in the French version of this.
[Translation]
It just says “donné la nature sommaire de l’étude préliminaire.”
Senator Oudar: Okay. That’s fine. We have to stick with the facts. I don’t know. We’re lawyers. For us, good facts make good law. It’s important not to qualify or attach emotions to a word, but to stick to the facts. I’m more comfortable with the word “sommaire” than with the word “tronquer”.
[English]
Senator Mohamed: May I ask Senator Saint-Germain to reread her amendment because I feel like there might be some middle ground there?
Senator Saint-Germain: What about stating:
The committee members regret that, given the limited time they had, they could not give sufficient consideration to these important issues.
Then we would translate it accordingly in French. It means that we regret the limited time, and then we recognize that we have not given due consideration to these important issues.
The Chair: Senator Simons, Senator Pate and Senator Batters, is that something you would like to compromise on?
Senator Simons: It is so rare that I am not up to talk.
In my heart, I agree with Senator Batters, but I think that I don’t care enough — I’m happy to be slightly more passive in our passive aggression. I think that Senator Saint-Germain’s compromise is apt.
Senator Pate: I am trying to now draw the line. I’m okay with that as long as it’s clear somewhere else that the timeline was not ours. This was a timeline provided to us by the government. I’m fine with us saying we didn’t get to consider this and so it was insufficient, but not if it’s on the committee or the team. It’s clearly on the government.
Senator Saint-Germain: If we say, “given the limited time that the committee members were allowed to” or something like that in better English —
Senator Pate: Given the government’s timeline, we had limited time?
Senator Saint-Germain: I would agree with that. I would personally, yes.
The Chair: In the spirit of compromise — did you get the words that Senator Saint-Germain finally landed on?
Ms. Phillips: I think it would be helpful to hear it one more time, if that’s okay, senator.
Senator Saint-Germain: It is: “The committee members regret that, given the limited time that the government asked for” — help me in English.
Ms. Phillips: Allotted by?
Senator Saint-Germain: “. . . the limited time allotted by the government, so they could not give due consideration to these important issues.” And then you can perfectly translate.
The Chair: Do we still have that sentence where they were invited but were not able to attend due to scheduling? Okay, that is still there.
Any further comments on paragraph 8? I guess if we don’t get through this, we might not hit the June 4 deadline.
Senator Mohamed: As this is the first bill that I’m sponsoring, I kind of geeked out and reread the “blues.” I wonder in the last part:
The committee would also have welcomed more extensive testimony on how the bill addresses foreign interference and developments in artificial intelligence, including the use of deep fakes.
In my reading of the “blues,” the minister actually calls out how there would be additional measures coming, and I wonder if there might be an acknowledgment of that. I think he said further measures can follow over time or something along those lines.
The Chair: If it’s in the “blues,” we will quote it exactly.
Senator Pate: I was just going to say, “particularly in light of the minister’s comments to the committee,” and we put in the rest.
Senator Mohamed: I don’t have it on me, but I kind of geeked out there.
Senator Batters: On that, then are we talking about the pre‑study for this bill or some other measures that the minister mentioned from some other bill? That’s not necessarily pertinent.
This is meant to be an extremely short synopsis of this. So if we’re getting into the fact that the minister mentioned he is going to do this and that, that’s nice, but it’s not an essential part of this very — it’s meant to be extremely short, particularly because we have to report it by tomorrow.
The Chair: We wanted to keep it to two pages. What was the minister’s intention when he said that? Do you have any idea?
Senator Mohamed: Why I’m suggesting this is because it was his testimony. I understand the point, Senator Batters, but it was his testimony that this is not one and done.
Also, in many of the other witness testimony, we heard the same thing. I would just like to bring a balance and recognize that the minister did acknowledge that. It’s not a hill I’m going to die on, but —
The Chair: What exact words do you want? The minister suggested, in the future, he may deal with these issues. I don’t know what he was —
Senator Mohamed: Something along the lines that the minister indicated that further measures can follow over time. I think that was one of his major messages. I leave it for the consideration of the committee.
The Chair: Senator Mohamed has a question there. Any other senators wish to comment about that? It’s the acknowledgment of the minister saying he may bring some further clarification or further legislation in the future.
Senator Pate: I’m saying that, particularly in light of the minister’s statement, it would have been nice to have had more information about this.
Senator Clement: I’m okay with referencing this — it’s the minister. It’s relevant testimony. I’m okay with mentioning that.
But I wonder: Does this report refer to the fact that we are deliberately not referring to it?
The Chair: Correct. I would say yes.
Senator Clement: Okay. If we’re mentioning that further things could change, well, there is a further report coming. I just wonder why we’re not mentioning — when we mention that we have looked at Part 4 of Bill C-4 — the Senate Legal Committee is also going to be producing a report.
The Chair: I guess in the order of things, we’re going to do this pre-study of Bill C-25 and then deal with this report later this afternoon.
Anyway, I think there is consensus. Did you get Senator Mohamed’s exact words?
Ms. Phillips: I just wanted to let you know that we have the exact words from the “blues” here of what the minister said, and I have what Senator Mohamed proposed as well.
The Chair: Can you read what the minister said exactly? If it complies, we’ll just distill it.
Ms. Phillips: This is from the “blues.” The minister said:
As I said, we’ll be chasing these AI and technology issues for some time. I suspect the next minister after the next election will come back with further measures, or maybe amended measures, that will be aimed at doing the exact kind of things you’re suggesting, but this is an incredibly robust start, and this is the first time that we’ve legislated in this way.
The Chair: So he’s thinking that some other minister may come and deal with those issues at some point in the future, not him.
Senator Batters: That is a pretty general quote. I should hope that the Minister of Justice would look at emerging issues in the next 10 years and that future ministers would look at other issues. I don’t think we need to have that in a very short, compressed report that is meant to be put to the chamber tomorrow.
The Chair: Senator Mohamed had some words she wanted to add. Senator Batters is saying, no, it’s not accurate. When you read the “blues,” it doesn’t reflect exactly that.
Senator Pate and Senator Simons, any other comments on this?
Senator Simons: No.
The Chair: Senator Mohamed, I believe there isn’t consensus on your statement there, so we’re going to move on to paragraph 9.
Senator Mohamed: This is my final observation.
In the paragraph starting with “furthermore,” if you go down, my focus is on:
. . . the same maximum administrative monetary penalty as someone who counsels others to sign multiple nomination papers in an orchestrated manner.
The minister addressed this on page 24 of the “blues,” and you probably have the “blues” handy. My read of that was, first of all, the penalties are meant to be dissuasive and proportionate. This is where we sort of discuss — I can’t remember if it’s in the “blues” or not — that the penalties are now going to go to $25,000 and to $100,000, though I don’t know that the minister actually talked about it. The idea was that it would be on a scale. It is at the discretion of the commissioner to do an investigation and levy a penalty. So this does not capture the spirit of what was said: It’s the same maximum administrative monetary policy. It then says that the committee is concerned that these two very different types of violations would be subject to the same maximum penalty.
That is not, in fact, the case when one reads the bill also.
The Chair: You did raise that issue the next day, I believe.
Senator Mohamed: That’s right.
The Chair: I know Senator Batters has strong views on this point.
Senator Batters: I don’t believe it was ever actually part of committee testimony or committee deliberations where that was discussed. As far as I know, we have still not received any formal answer from the government about that. We were discussing the wording of my concern about that, which I raised with not only the Chief Electoral Officer, who pointed out that it actually is the same maximum administrative monetary penalty. We tailored the language to ensure that it was accurate, reflecting what is in the bill. Also, we heard from the minister who confirmed that is the case.
I have heard these responses from Senator Mohamed, but I still haven’t received anything from the government, nor has the committee. That was never actually in committee testimony about these. I’m waiting for the government to actually point me to the correct sections. That should be what they do. I had such strong concerns about it that I actually told the minister that he should potentially deal with this and make an amendment at clause-by-clause consideration at the House of Commons committee, which was soon to be dealt with there. That’s why I ensured that this language was tailored down and that it is accurate when we look at the actual bill because none of these discussions about the potential amounts of monetary penalties have ever been part of this very short pre-study.
The Chair: I recall that Senator Lewis asked some very pointed questions about this very point as well, following your point.
Senator Batters: His point was different. It was related to mine but different. It wasn’t about this part of it. He was asking who could pay the fine. That was his question.
Senator Mohamed: Again, I guess what confuses me is that it is in black and white and in writing on page 31 about what the penalties are. The committee, I understand, hears from witnesses, but the committee also reviews the bill. I’m not going to die on this hill, but I think it just seems odd that the committee would say that when in black and white it says what it is.
I understand that it is around the testimony, but the report itself is not only the one single line. There is a bill that says what the maximum penalties are. So I leave that again for the consideration of the committee. Obviously, the maximum penalties are stated. In any case, I leave that for the consideration of the committee.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Batters: On that, it was the Chief Electoral Officer, who is a lawyer, who actually brought this — I was not even aware of this — to our attention at this committee, saying that the maximum fine is $1,000 maximum, which he said would be under Bill C-25 for someone signing more than one nomination paper and for someone counselling many potential people to sign many more than one. He said that for both offences, and I even confirmed it with him because I was quite surprised about that.
Then I raised that with the minister, who did not contradict that. So that’s the testimony that we have. I’m happy to receive something different, but that’s the thing about a pre-study. When we actually hear this kind of thing from the Chief Electoral Officer — who has been extremely involved in dealing with this bill and will have to administer it after it is passed — I would expect that he would know what the deal is. So I don’t understand, if there is such a clear black-and-white answer, why he would have said something so different. We will have to wait for further committee testimony to be able to ask him about that.
The Chair: Okay. Now, on this point, I’m looking to all senators. Are there any further senators who have points on this issue?
Senator Simons: I remember when the minister said it, I was surprised because my staff had informed me that the Chief Electoral Officer had misspoken. If Senator Batters is correct and the minister agreed, but then his staff said to me afterwards, “Oh, no, that was a mistake.” But that wasn’t on the record that they said it was a mistake. They said it to me in the hallway. So I don’t know what we should do with that.
The Chair: Is it a good idea to highlight that the minister made a mistake? It is an important concern.
Senator Batters: According to how we have the wording here, it has been deliberately tailored down. Even if the contention of Senator Mohamed is correct that it is this much higher amount, it still is the same maximum administrative monetary penalty. The wording as we have it in this pre-study report is still correct, and it doesn’t highlight that the minister may have misspoken. I don’t know if he did or not. I am waiting to hear about that. But nothing in this small paragraph here is incorrect. Those two offences have the same maximum penalty.
Senator Mohamed: I just want to read the “blues” so that we all benefit from what Mr. Perrault said as follows:
There is a prohibition in the act that comes with a fine, which I believe is up to $1,000, if I’m not mistaken.
Perhaps he was mistaken. So I think it is really important that we know what he said versus what we think he said. He said, “. . . if I’m not mistaken.” So I’ll leave that there.
I would like us to go back and look at what the minister actually said. Later in the “blues,” Minister MacKinnon says the following:
Is the penalty high enough? It will become an offence. It’s not just a fine, but there’s a public airing of these issues, and we think that, in the first instance, as a new law takes effect, that, first, it will be highly dissuasive. There are two measures, as you know, that are designed to deal with this matter, which we hope effectively does deal with it. Second, the period of adaptation if someone innocently were to sign a paper, you can imagine that it could be easy to make a mistake, so imposing a sanction higher than that might be a little vexatious, but as we review these things after every election, we’ll continue to do.
He is saying they are not going to be treated the same. That’s where my concern comes in: suggesting that they would have the same maximum penalty.
The Chair: Perhaps we could say something like this:
The committee is concerned that there may be very different types of violations which would be subject to the same maximum penalty.
So we’re saying that it is a concern that this committee still has that needs to be resolved, and it takes away any implication as to whether the Chief Electoral Officer made a mistake or the minister did or everybody did or nobody did.
Senator Batters: I’m okay with adding in the words “may be,” as you just voiced it. That’s okay with me. I’m not okay with taking away anything about this maximum penalty, if we were to go further than that, because it is actually correct. Whether the maximum is very high or whether it is very low, it is correct to say that it is the maximum penalty for both of those offences. Chair, yes, I am okay to add in how you have worded it —
The Chair: We’re rather making an assumption that we’re going to study this bill with much more rigour. This is currently our assumption, but assumption is the mother of all mistakes.
Are you okay with that compromise, Senator Mohamed?
Senator Mohamed: Could you read back what you said?
The Chair: It would say:
The committee is concerned that there may be different types of violations which would be subject to the same maximum penalty.
We’re uncertain based on the evidence we have.
Senator Mohamed: Yes, okay. I will give this one last go. The issue is that there is a sliding scale. If you sign a piece of paper by accident, that’s one thing; if you sign something multiple times versus you counsel someone to sign multiple times, that’s very different and there is a sliding scale. So that is the point that I’m —
The Chair: The point I am making is that there is an issue. It is not going to be resolved today because we’re restricted to evidence, and perhaps your further interventions you made — we are just trying to signal that this is an issue.
Senator Mohamed: Okay.
Senator Batters: On what Senator Mohamed was just saying, there are two different offences. There is the offence of signing multiple nomination papers, and there is the offence of counselling, which is getting added to this. Both of them — currently and in Bill C-25 — have the same maximum penalty. Those things are true.
So there is not a sliding scale when you are talking about the maximum penalty. There are two offences, and there is the same maximum penalty. There could be a sliding scale to determine what the penalty actually is, but there is not a sliding scale about the maximum penalty. So I’m okay with adding, as you suggested, chair, the “may be” and “which would.” That’s fine. I’m not okay with adjusting it further because, frankly, it’s been a week since we have heard this and had these questions, and the government hasn’t provided additional clarity. So I feel like that’s a pretty good compromise.
The Chair: For the last sentence, I think the compromise at the moment is:
The committee is concerned that there may be different types of violations which would be subject to the same maximum penalty.
Great. Thank you.
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m sorry. I have a comment on paragraph 10. I do not believe that because we had limited time, we were not rigorous. So I suggest that we delete “rigorous, thorough and,” and the paragraph would read:
With these concerns in mind, the committee looks forward to conducting a more comprehensive study of Bill C-25 when the bill is referred to the committee.
I believe we were rigorous. We had limited time, not enough time, but we were rigorous.
The Chair: We’re almost at unanimity here. I’m afraid to ask anybody any questions.
Senator Batters: I just have to say that I think it is correct to say “thorough and comprehensive.”
Senator Saint-Germain: [Technical difficulties].
Senator Batters: No.
Senator Saint-Germain: In English, it’s not.
[Translation]
In French, we would say, “une étude plus complète.”
[English]
Senator Batters: I feel like the government needs to get the signal that we can’t just do — because what I am concerned about, frankly, is with the time we still have in June, the government is going to say, “Oh, you are all good. You don’t need to do a comprehensive study with this bill. You have already done a pre-study. Good enough. Pass it. We want it before you leave.” What I’m concerned about is that they will pressure us to potentially not do any study. I think they need to get the actual message that we need to do a more — I think it is fine to say “thorough and comprehensive,” but it is not critical.
Senator Saint-Germain: I would agree and I compromise. So it’s “thorough and comprehensive” in English. And in French, the word complète includes both. It is rare that we need more words in English than in French, but there are always exceptions.
The Chair: Okay. All right. Senators, it looks like we have come to an agreement. Are there any other comments by any senators on this issue? Thank you, colleagues.
Senators, is it agreed that the eighth report, as amended, be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the chair be authorized to table the eighth report in the Senate in both official languages by June 4, 2026?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. All right, colleagues, that concludes our dealings with the eighth report.
Colleagues, we’ll now move to an examination of the privacy issues regarding federal political parties under the Canada Elections Act, which is an interim report and 34 pages in length. Are we ready to discuss this report? It has been previously circulated. It has been reviewed by the steering committee prior to getting to this stage. So now it is here as a draft for consideration of the whole committee.
Senator Pate: We accept it. It is basically what we asked the committee to do.
Senator Simons: I think it is terrific.
The Chair: Is it unanimous? No.
Senator Batters: There are some changes because, remember, I asked for certain things, and some of them have been changed but not all of them. So there are a few areas that I just want to point out.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Batters: First of all, on page 7, paragraph 2, which starts on line 13, that needs to make it clearer. This is one of the parts where it does not make it as clear — other parts do. The wording needs to change a little bit to indicate that it is the majority that agree, not all.
The Chair: Okay. Which words would you like to use to convey that thought?
Senator Batters: Well, maybe it could say, “The evidence received by the committee suggests to the majority that the rules . . . .”
The Chair: Consensus all around? Okay. Thank you.
Senator Batters: Okay. Let me see. On page 19, paragraph 44, I felt this quote was quite incendiary. To use the scare tactic of AI and to say political parties in a few years are going to be — to say that canvassing voters on doorsteps will look like a pointy stick next to an atomic bomb. I didn’t actually remember that this quote was even used, and I just thought it was quite an incendiary quote to bring out. I’m not sure it is reflective of — I just don’t recall that quote.
It will get some attention for sure, but I’m not sure that’s — and it is talking about the future and how AI could be used and what have you.
The Chair: What would you suggest? Would you suggest taking it right out? I think it is Palantir in the United States that claims that they have 3,000 data points on every American voter. So this is the —
Senator Batters: That’s the other thing. On the next page, it says that the committee was advised that Canadian federal political parties rely heavily on American firms. Was that Mr. Hearn who said that? I don’t recall. I don’t think the parties agreed that was true. I don’t think it is true for the Conservative Party. When you are attributing these different things that might be happening in the U.S. to Canada, I don’t think that’s accurate. I’m not sure that we want to say things that could be —
The Chair: Okay. Let’s just deal with paragraph 44 right now.
Senator Batters: No, I see what you are saying.
When you were saying that this could happen in the U.S. and the 3,000 points — as I have indicated and as the minister indicated, it is pretty basic information that people are seeking at the doors, and there aren’t all of these different scare tactics.
The Chair: Yes. On paragraph 44, Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Like Senator Simons, I like the image it creates that we have got, first, no understanding Luddite versus what is possible, and it was what was said, so I think I would be in favour of leaving that. For the second point that you raised, Senator Batters, that was his testimony. Is there a way you would think of adding nuance to it?
Senator Batters: Is it page 20 —
Senator Pate: I’m talking about paragraph 46. I’m sorry; it’s paragraph 47.
Senator Batters: I was referring to the start of paragraph 47, line 11, where it says that the committee was advised that Canadian federal political parties rely heavily on American firms. My question was by whom. Was it Hearn? I don’t recall that the parties ever said that was true. At the very least, it needs to be footnoted and not just stated as a fact that they rely heavily on that because I actually don’t even think that’s true in Canada.
Senator Pate: I agree. A footnote would be good.
The Chair: I think it is attributed to Hearn, but do you have a comment?
Ms. Phillips: That comes from the brief of Professor Sara Bannerman as well. I could double-check and ensure there is a citation for that.
Senator Batters: I think we should say “according to” or something like that because we didn’t have the opportunity to have the federal political parties in front of us.
We had the lawyers. That’s right. But had I known that was something that would potentially be in a report, I probably would have asked the Conservative lawyer if that was true because I don’t think that’s true for us. He probably would have said, “No, that’s not true.”
The Chair: All right.
Senator Simons: This is a point I probably should have raised earlier. Is it possible not to use the acronym “FPP” and to call them federal political parties? I have never heard FPP used before. Perhaps that’s my ignorance. I’m allergic to acronyms at the best of times and that one —
The Chair: I think we can easily change it all —
Senator Simons: Yes, with a search and replace.
The Chair: That will be done.
Senator Simons: I tend to agree with Senator Batters and Senator Pate. I think the wording of paragraph 47 is a bit odd.
The Chair: In what way?
Senator Simons: In the sense that it is not attributed.
Senator Pate: They are going to get the footnote.
Senator Simons: Okay.
The Chair: It was said by Professor Bannerman or maybe not.
Senator Simons: I would like it sourced.
The Chair: We will source it, and if it can’t be sourced, we will take it out.
Senator Batters: On page 24, at the start of paragraph 61, line 4, it says, “Witnesses were clear that federal political parties should be governed . . . .” I think it would be fair to say “many witnesses” because it was not unanimous. I don’t think the parties probably thought that they should be governed by all of those things.
The Chair: Okay. “Many” seems fair. That’s done.
Senator Batters: Okay. Then on page 26, line 24, it is talking about how Bill C-65 died on the Order Paper. I think it should say, “. . . died on the Order Paper in the House of Commons.” It is not like other bills, which were at the very last stage and ready to pass. It was not even close to passing. I think it was still at committee in the House of Commons, actually.
The Chair: There’s consensus on that.
Senator Batters: Great. On page 30, paragraph 83, line 17, the conclusion needs to indicate that it was the majority that thought this, not all.
The Chair: The majority of the committee.
Senator Pate: Is that paragraph 83 or 84?
Senator Batters: It’s paragraph 83. It says, “The evidence received by the committee during this short study exposed . . . .” It makes it seem like the entire committee agreed with that, and the entire committee did not agree with that.
The Chair: Say that again.
Ms. Phillips: Would “. . . exposed what the majority of the committee views as . . . .” work?
Senator Batters: Yes. That’s good. Thank you.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on this document?
Senator Simons: Chair, thank you for deciding to do this. I know it is unorthodox, but I think it is a good expression of concerns that were shared generally around the table.
Senator Pate: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Thank you, but I think there was a strong consensus in the whole committee to take that —
Senator Simons: You definitely took the lead, and you should be thanked for that.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, is it agreed that the tenth report, as amended, be adopted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the chair be authorized to table the tenth report in the Senate in both official languages at the earliest possible opportunity?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, for all of your advice. I would ask the steering committee members to stay here and the non-steering committee members to please vacate the room so that we can have a steering committee meeting. Thank you very much for all your help.
(The committee adjourned.)