THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 17, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 1:03 p.m. [ET] to study 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.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of the committee.
I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Moreau: Pierre Moreau, the Laurentides division, Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia, Mi’kma’ki territory.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons from Alberta, and I live on Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec. I’m filling in for Senator Oudar today.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, senator for the Yukon. Thank you for your appearance today.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are meeting today with the purpose of conducting clause-by-clause consideration 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.
To assist us in our examination today, we are pleased to be joined by a number of witnesses who are available if any questions should arise.
From the Privy Council Office, we have Rachel Pereira, Director, Democratic Institutions. From the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, we have Karolyn Savard, General Counsel and Senior Director, Legal Services; and Trevor Knight, General Counsel. From the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, we have Chantal Richard, Executive Director and Senior General Counsel, Legal Services; and Jean-Michel Kalubiaka, Senior Counsel and Director, Legal Services.
Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.
Senator Batters: I have a question for our clerk. I know that those who are in attendance to help us today are here for the purposes of clause-by-clause consideration and not to testify. I know there were invitations sent to witnesses to testify about Bill C-25 that our steering committee extended through our clerk. Because we don’t have any of those witnesses today, I wonder how many were invited and how many declined or failed to respond to the invitation.
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: Thank you, Senator Batters. At this time, I would have to get back to you with exact figures, but I can say that, on the subject matter of Bill C-25, this committee held three meetings, met for approximately four hours and 45 minutes and heard from 16 witnesses.
I understand this committee was hoping to hear from additional witnesses today. They were invited under the notice that was provided to this committee to study the bill and have declined for various reasons. For today, there were a total of four witnesses who were invited and declined.
Senator Batters: Those were the political party lawyers and the witness from Alberta.
Mr. Labrosse: That is correct. These included the counsel for all three main political parties, as well as the Alberta Privacy Commissioner, who was not able to appear during the subject matter of this bill due to technical difficulties.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I am terribly disappointed that we are not able to hear from Alberta’s Privacy Commissioner. The situation in Alberta is very grave. It is a threat to the safety of many Albertans — including me, Senator Tannas and Senator K. Wells. I think it would have been very edifying for the committee to have heard about the crisis in Alberta with the privacy of voter information and about the inability of the Alberta Privacy Commissioner to fully engage with the situation.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Simons.
Colleagues, we’re now going to move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-25.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration 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?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the two parts of Bill C-25?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Part 1, entitled “Canada Elections Act,” which contains clauses 2 to 87, inclusive, from pages 1 to 42, carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Colleagues, shall Part 2, entitled “An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026,” which contains clauses 88 to 89, inclusive, carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Shall clause 1, which contained the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: I think the “yeas” have it, 2 to 1. Do you have a comment?
Senator Simons: I don’t have an observation prepared. I’m wondering if we can append our recent report on Part 4 of Bill C-4.
The Chair: We have one proposal in writing in advance from Senator Tannas. Do you want to —
Senator Simons: I would like to see Senator Tannas’s observation first.
The Chair: Colleagues, one at a time. Do you want to append observations, yes or no?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: The “yeas” have it.
An Hon. Senator: Recorded vote.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Hébert?
Senator Hébert: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Housakos?
Senator Housakos: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Saint-Germain?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 11; nays, 3; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: Colleagues, we’ll now move to consideration of any observations to the report. Senator Tannas has a draft observation.
Senator Tannas: Colleagues, we may have done all of this for naught. I originally drafted an observation and then, I think, proposed that we look at adding it to the actual report of the committee, which we have a draft of. I think you all have seen what I was proposing be added to the committee report. It’s in and of itself an observation that would go into that report.
It’s probably cleaner to go into that than an observation in the bill because it really —
The Chair: What are you saying, sir, about your observation? What do you want to do with it right now?
Senator Tannas: It should be added to the twelfth report, after the statement about the rubber stamp.
The Chair: All right. We’ll consider that, but first, I’m going to now move — Senator Batters has a question.
Senator Batters: I do not have a question. I was going to say that’s what happens with observations. They are added to the end of the report to say it is an observation. That is what would happen with this.
I’ve read this one. I am not in favour of it, especially the ending section, which says that to express our disapproval, we should abstain. That is the ultimate in non-action. I cannot agree to that. That is the major part that I object to.
We didn’t receive an update. I only received this very recently.
The Chair: Senator Batters is not in favour of the proposed amendment, but Senator Tannas, is there a change or addition?
Senator Tannas: There was — to that very sentence.
The Chair: Does everyone have the new edition?
Senator Tannas: It’s lines 17 to 21. Let me read it out. It says:
In light of the House of Commons’ strong assertion of privilege over matters relating to the selection of Members of Parliament, alternative mechanisms remain available through which the Senate may express its position in legislative proceedings. One such mechanism is the use of abstention pluralities. Accordingly, senators may wish to consider abstaining at third reading of 20 Bill C-25 as a means of communicating the Senate’s perspective to the House of Commons.
Senator Batters: I did see that. That is what I’m objecting to and that I absolutely do not want. That’s what I was saying. Abstaining, to me, is the ultimate non-action. No, I don’t agree to that. That is obviously just the ending of this observation. There are two other opening paragraphs.
The Chair: Do you have any concerns about the first two paragraphs?
Senator Batters: Yes.
The Chair: Do you want to state them?
Senator Batters: I just received this, basically, as we sat down here a few minutes ago. There are a lot of strong words in the initial part. Perhaps, so that it makes some sense to people watching on television, Senator Tannas should read out what the observations are, as we are the only ones who can see it.
The Chair: I’ll give Senator Tannas the floor for the purpose of reading and advocating for his observation. Then we’ll have a debate on it.
Senator Tannas: We have a draft report that finishes with the line following line:
The government-imposed timeframe for this bill has forced the committee to speed through its study without hearing the full range of evidence required to provide the thoughtful, measured advice on which the committee prides itself. Being put in this position by the government erodes the constitutional role of the Senate as a chamber of sober second sought, reducing the institution to a rubber stamp for the government’s legislative agenda.
I’m proposing to add three paragraphs immediately following. They read as follows:
In its message to the Senate concerning amendments to Bill C-4, the House of Commons asserted that there exists a longstanding tradition whereby the Senate defers to the House on amendments to the Canada Elections Act. It emphasized that such deference is particularly appropriate where amendments have received unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House and pertain to the regulation of candidates representing political parties seeking election to that chamber.
The Committee does not concur with this position. As a constituent element of Parliament, the Senate holds a constitutionally mandated responsibility to review and scrutinize all legislation, including proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
In light of the House of Commons’ strong assertion of privilege over matters relating to the selection of members of Parliament, alternative mechanisms remain available through which the Senate may express its position in legislative proceedings. One such mechanism is the use of abstention pluralities. Accordingly, senators may wish to consider abstaining at third reading of 20 Bill C-25 as a means of communicating the Senate’s perspective to the House of Commons.
I do not expect that we should defeat this bill. I agree with many of the comments that Senator Housakos made in his speech yesterday, but we should not vote for it and put our stamp of approval on something that potentially a majority of us do not believe is the right thing to be doing at this moment.
Many of us believe we should be doing a more fulsome study. Many of us believe that this bill doesn’t go far enough in the protection of privacy rights for Canadians.
In other circumstances, we would be doing something about it. However, we’re not doing something about it, as Senator Batters said. We are taking no action. I think the perfect expression of no action is an abstention. That’s my view, colleagues.
The Chair: On debate, on Senator Tannas’s proposed amendment?
Senator Batters: First, it says, in the opening part of this observation, “. . . that the House of Commons asserted that there exists a longstanding tradition . . . .” Others in the Senate also voiced that, including Senator Housakos and, I believe, the bill’s sponsor, in her speech yesterday. I certainly voiced this when we were dealing with the same subject matter, as did Senator Cuzner, who is the sponsor of Bill C-4. All of us asserted that there is that tradition.
To then say that, just putting it kind of on the House of Commons — well, those of us I just named also agree that deference is appropriate and have voiced that publicly many times.
So, to say, “The Committee does not concur with this position” would obviously not be true. It is not true as a unanimously held view of this committee. Other senators can speak for themselves.
Obviously, we hold the constitutionally mandated responsibility to review and scrutinize legislation. That’s above reproach.
I can hold two views at the same time, and I have expressed both publicly. I believe there should be this deference to the members of the House of Commons elected by the people. However, at the same time, we obviously also have to do our jobs here at the Senate. I have voiced my strong views that we did not have the opportunity to do this on Bill C-25.
As Senator Tannas would see by the draft report, much of which I agree with — there are a couple of little grammatical things that I want to talk about potentially changing, but that gets the point across that we needed to do a fuller study here. We’ve said that in our previous reports on the pre-study of Bill C-25. I have voiced that publicly a number of times, including to the justice minister at this committee the other day.
I don’t think it is appropriate to deal with it as an observation. Again, that seems to receive minimal attention from the government anyway. I certainly won’t be abstaining. I believe our job is to vote one way or the other, and I will be exercising that right, as I have throughout this process.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: If I understand correctly, Senator Tannas, you’d like these three paragraphs to be included in our draft report that will be submitted to the chamber. Did I understand correctly? Okay.
With respect, I’m uncomfortable with the content of your observation for two reasons. First, I believe we have a duty as senators to examine all bills, including those that amend the Elections Act, and that is what we’ve done. When we’re looking at a bill, we can agree, disagree or, if we’re not sure enough to vote one way or another, we can abstain.
Second, if these observations are included in our report and a senator votes for or against the bill, you are implying that this senator is putting their mark on the bill and that the senator has not sufficiently studied the bill in committee and in the chamber — I include non-members of this committee here — to be able to make an informed decision.
Personally, that’s not my situation. Indeed, I’ve listened to all the testimony, including at the pre-study stage. I’ve also reviewed all the reports and proposals that we have received, and I’m in a position to vote.
I think that, when a committee reports to the chamber, it cannot link or bind other senators to observations of this nature. That’s why, if we go to a recorded vote, I will personally vote against these additions to our report.
[English]
Senator Simons: I feel as if we should append a version of this observation. I would say that I think it’s missing a little something in the second paragraph because it doesn’t make mention of the fact that we’re talking about the privacy rights of Canadian citizens. This isn’t just a question of flexing our constitutional privilege. We’re safeguarding something really important. So I would like to include a phrase at the end of the second paragraph:
. . . including proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act, especially as they pertain to the privacy rights and privacy protections of all Canadian voters.
As for the final paragraph, I think that we should be very free to suggest to our colleagues in our various Senate groups that this is the appropriate strategy, but I’m not sure that it makes sense to append it as an observation, given that the government won’t read the report until after we’ve had our vote. That is an observation, but not to the government. That is strategic advice between ourselves. I think I would therefore agree with Senator Batters that it’s not appropriate that it be in the observations, but I thank Senator Tannas for putting it out there so we could talk about it.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, do you have a response to the comments so far?
Senator Tannas: Colleagues, we’ve had a good tradition of finding consensus on observations. I don’t hear any consensus on the last paragraph in particular, so I propose we strike the last paragraph. We would also strike, on line 13, “The Committee does not concur with this position.” I think we can get away with that being taken out. Also, as a constituent element of Parliament, we don’t need to say we disagree. We can assert what we know to be true.
Then, as Senator Simons said, we could also just add something at the end of the paragraph to say that we remain concerned or we are attentive to the protection of privacy rights for Canadians. I would be fine with that.
The Chair: Did you have some exact words, Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: I have them off the top of my head, “. . . including proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act . . . .” If you want it to be a stand-alone sentence, you could say, “The committee remains concerned . . . .” I don’t know if that is all the committee does, but:
. . . including proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act, especially as those amendments pertain to the privacy rights and protections of Canadian voters.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I also believe that paragraph 3 should be removed. Even if you’re right, Senator Batters, and even though several senators have expressed this point of view, what struck us all was the rather harsh nature of the government’s message to us. I understand the tradition, but obviously, we could also argue that the members themselves and the political parties are in a conflict of interest when they create bills about themselves. Generally speaking, at least some distance is required.
I think that the first paragraph is great. In terms of our options, there are two solutions for the second paragraph. We could indicate the following in the first sentence:
[English]
— “The majority of the committee does not concur with this position.”
[Translation]
This is a wording that has been used a number of times to show that the committee is not unanimous in this respect. We have to vote, of course, but depending on the vote, I think we can use the following wording:
[English]
— “The majority of the committee does not concur with this position.”
[Translation]
I think that’s strong enough. We don’t want it to be too lacklustre either. In my opinion, that sums it up nicely. We were all quite affected by the fact that the study will not continue. We’re missing a lot of information, particularly on foreign interference. We haven’t had any witnesses on that, so we can’t say — or rather I can’t say, I’ll speak for myself here — that I have enough information to ensure that I have exercised sober second thought on this. Therefore, I support this observation.
[English]
Senator Housakos: I want to make a quick intervention. I think my colleagues addressed some of it when they spoke to Senator Tannas’s observation. I want to make a brief comment on Senator Miville-Dechêne’s comment about the conflict of interest on the other side.
Parliament works on the simple principle that every parliament is completely autonomous in regulating itself and governing itself. It’s for them to determine with their own mechanism on ethics if they have a conflict of interest; it’s not on you or me or this chamber. The same parliamentary rules apply to this place. We would be outraged if the House tried to infringe upon direct elements that touch the governance of this place. We’d be the first to be outraged. Yet we have no problem, as if some kind of superauthority, with observing and regulating their functioning.
All I said yesterday — and I’m highlighting it again today — is that we have to be very careful not to cross that threshold. The moment you cross that threshold, you infringe upon their parliamentary privilege.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I said that my opinion is that there is a conflict of interest. I did not suggest intervening or regulating them. I simply shared my opinion.
Senator Housakos: I understand that.
[English]
What I see here is an attempt by many senators — and we saw it yesterday with specific speeches and approaches — to lecture the other place as to how electoral processes should be run. This is being done by several individuals who self-admittedly have abstained from participating in that process. Over the past few years, some of you have “superabstained.” However, all of a sudden, we’ve become authorities dictating to them how they should run their elections. The only elected senator around this table is all of a sudden questioning how political parties elect their representatives.
Senator Tannas, that’s precisely what we’re trying to do, and we’re trying to attach the same set of rules to private companies and private entities when it comes to data management on political parties, who, again, infringe far less on the operation of those political parties than other institutions in this country do.
The Chair: Senator Tannas, did you want to respond now?
Senator Tannas: To respond to that briefly, yes, I am the only person who got here by virtue of an election. The point is this: It isn’t about the electoral process. There’s one area we are all focused on, and that’s privacy: people’s information and its privacy.
Here is what we know: What we know is in the bill. What we don’t know, and what we’re not allowed to know, is what political parties know about us. There is no way in which we can ask them and compel them to tell us what their file on us says.
We can’t ask for a copy of it. We can’t make corrections to it. And guess what — if all that information had somehow leaked, up until the moment this bill passes, nobody had to report it. Now it’s come to the point where they can report it if they think it’s important. If they don’t think it’s important, they don’t even have to tell the person.
We are not trying to impose — I’m not, because I believe that political parties cannot meet those standards and need flexibility. There’s no question about that. They collect a lot of information through their own efforts, they buy public information and so on. We’re heading into a new era when private information will be subject to AI assumptions, microtargeting and so on; all of that is there, and we have concerns. We should be careful.
We did not see in any of the work that we did anything other than aggression and protection of the status quo by the political parties working in concert with each other. This is an area of concern for us, and we should be free to express it and not have our motives questioned for doing so. That’s all.
I’m at the point now where I’m actually raising a white flag and saying, “I surrender.” You guys go ahead. You’re in charge. However, I’m not going to vote for it. I’m not going to vote against it. I’m going to do something that says, “Surrender.”
I know others feel somewhat the same way, and I just look to express it here. I think we’ve had a wonderful debate, and I appreciate Senator Housakos’s intervention yesterday — less so today — but if we can leave some bread crumbs for Canadians of the future so that when the inevitable happens, and they say, “How did this get passed, and how did all this information get leaked?,” we don’t have our fingerprints all over it. We’ve shown somebody somewhere that way back when this bill was passed, we raised concerns.
Sorry for the length, colleagues.
The Chair: I’ll let Senator Housakos respond.
Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, I appreciate the exchange, and my comments today are consistent with my comments yesterday. I’ve been very consistent on this for a long time.
I want to address one thing because I have some experience with political parties and political organizations, and I gained a lot of experience in my days in marketing in terms of data and using marketing data for private sector use. I can tell you that private sector companies are a lot more intrusive with the data they collect and the way they use it.
What I want to say about political parties is this: The only data they have, colleagues, is the data that people give them. If they give them a telephone number or an email address, that’s what they have. People also have the right to go back to that political party and ask to be removed from the list, removed from the mailing list, which happens quite often, even if they want to remain as card-carrying members of the party. They are also solicited for funds, but if they ask to be removed from the list, they are removed from the list. The only information that political parties have is what people have shared.
The concern from all political parties is that once you have Elections Canada regulating their data, then they’re going to want to regulate their selection and nomination process, and then they’re going to want to regulate the leadership race. I’m giving you the view of all members and organizers of political parties: At some point, they will want to regulate how we choose leaders — future prime ministers and leaders of the opposition, for example — in this country. Most people at general assemblies of all political parties say, “This is our responsibility. We make the rules of the process on the general assembly floor and live by them.” They don’t want any bureaucrat or any member of the Senate to infringe upon the structure of that process.
The Chair: I’m going to let Senator Tannas respond.
Senator Tannas: I have a concern with some of the things you said, Senator Housakos. We don’t know what political parties know about us. What we do know is what came out in the British Columbia court case, where the provincial party there, which we would assume that the feds would be at least as organized as, had 30 data points on voters. That’s not just names and addresses.
Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, that’s an assumption you are making.
Senator Tannas: I’m saying that came out in the evidence in the B.C. court case: that a B.C. provincial party had 30 data points. I don’t believe for a second that federal political parties are less sophisticated than a provincial political party. I think we have to be careful in what we say we know. I don’t think we know what we know.
The Chair: I will move forward here.
Senator Saint-Germain: First, I personally looked at the websites of the five recognized political parties in the House of Commons, and I can concur with Senator Housakos that there is very little information that they are allowed to collect and that they do collect, and this bill is way better than the status quo.
I don’t like this conversation because I believe we’re misleading Canadians. In the pre-study, this committee had the opportunity to hear from both the Chief Electoral Officer and his very qualified team, and also the Commissioner of Canada Elections, and they’re here with us today. They were asked many questions, but none of them flagged to us any kind of pitfalls, loopholes or scandals that could result from this bill eventually receiving Royal Assent. That’s my first point.
My second point is about the suggestion from my colleague Senator Simons. I believe the way it is worded, it’s kind of insinuating that there will be privacy issues that we fear and that we know will happen, and I believe that it’s implying that this bill receiving Royal Assent breaches Canadians’ privacy.
I fundamentally disagree with that. If this wording is kept by the committee, I want a nominal vote on this one, because I disagree with that. We have no reason to state this so firmly in our report to the Senate.
Senator Dalphond: Senator Saint-Germain expressed my views. This committee looked at Bill C-4, Part 4, before. I think I was there, and we certainly spent more than a full day listening to witnesses, so we did due diligence on those privacy issues. We heard groups that were well informed in digital information and all that, and they testified for us and opened my eyes to many things. We even heard from representatives of the three federal parties. This is a continuum of information. This committee is a well-informed committee. That’s what I want to say.
Here, we’re wrapping up before we break for the summer, and we are kind of tight because there’s a programming motion that was adopted by the Senate — not forced upon us by the government but adopted by ourselves — about how to wrap up before we adjourn for the summer. So we have all agreed to proceed quickly with the study of Bill C-25, which is a reflection of what we were asking the government to introduce in the legislation, the Canada Elections Act: more provisions about privacy. We received maybe half the cake we were asking for, but we still received half the cake. That’s already progress. We know that.
I read the draft report, and I believe the report is fine. You can refer to the motions. But I think it’s drafted in a way that gives the reader the impression that we met two days ago and we’re forced to do so today, and we’re not going to make amendments, and not only the suggestion of my friend Senator Tannas. They are interesting proposals, but it’s way beyond what we are doing here as a report.
What the role is of the Senate with respect to the Canada Elections Act? Quite frankly, I stood up and spoke against some colleagues who were lecturing the other place about the way they should behave and suggesting members of the other place had a conflict of interest. That is a view I don’t share. I disagree and said so publicly, and I certainly share the concerns expressed by Senator Housakos. However, I’m not willing today to say that amendments to the Canada Elections Act are something that should not be looked at by this chamber; maybe it should even be amended by this chamber. However, these things are related to elections and how they are run. These are things that they are experts in and we are not, and we should be deferential.
Moreover, there might be provisions put in this act that are incoherent with other legislation we have adopted. That might be about the transfer of money or payment of money; it might be that they charge $20 if you do something. There are things that are beyond the scope of the work we do and calling for a far less deferential attitude.
So, Senator Tannas, I think this is a very broad affirmation that we should surrender. I’m not going to surrender, but I’m going to be very deferential to things that are related to the functioning of political parties.
That being said, the observation proposed by Senator Tannas raises a much broader issue than what we’re doing with this bill, and it’s maybe not the proper time to have that discussion. We can revisit the issue in the Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders Committee or in the chamber. We can have a full debate on that.
For the time being, I would keep the draft report suggested by the steering committee. I would delete a few things there that I think are not necessarily thoroughly accurate, but we can go line by line, and I will mention it.
The Chair: We’re not there yet.
Colleagues, do you think I can excuse the officials? I think we’ve covered the whole bill. The officials are now here, and we’re discussing the report and observations.
Senator Batters: They could stay, but perhaps just not at the table or something like that. Perhaps they could decide who should stay behind in case certain questions come up, and who should leave.
The Chair: Okay. The officials might want to stay.
Senator Clement: I feel some kind of way about this. I’ve been trying to understand my purpose this week, I must say.
I’ve twice been a candidate in a federal election. I was in a nomination race one of those times as well. I’ve also participated in municipal campaigns. I have held elected office and appointed office, and there is a role for both.
When you are elected and have to make decisions, the sweat is often running down your back in a meeting because you’re thinking about what is going to happen for you in the next election. That’s good. That’s how it should be. You should be thinking about how people are going to vote in response to how you are making decisions.
However, there is a role for the appointed. We’re here to give our best advice, disconnected from the next election cycle or the next government that may be in office. So, I stand with Senator Miville-Dechêne in my feeling that we should be giving our best advice on issues regarding elections because we are not connected to that process; that gives us a particular vantage point from which to provide our advice.
You all know that I stood up in the chamber on Part 4 of Bill C-4 to ask that it be deleted. That started a debate in the chamber around institutionalists versus activists. I’m both. I’m a senator who is here to provide my best advice. Once I provided my best advice and the other place rejected that, I sat down and went back to work on all the other pieces of legislation coming my way. I’m not going to stop giving my best advice to a government, whether it be on the Canada Elections Act or anything else they put in front of me.
That being said, in this study of Bill C-25, I was hoping — because for Bill C-4, I sat down and said, “They didn’t take my advice. That’s fine. They will do better on Bill C-25.” And they have, but they haven’t gone as far as I would like. The amendments that were put forward by the Chief Electoral Officer, which we didn’t have a chance to review, concern me most. I’m very concerned about those.
I don’t know what Canadians know about this. I suspect they don’t know enough, and that’s my worry. It’s not that they’re going to be afraid that political parties are out to do bad things with their information. That’s not it. I think we don’t know what we don’t know, and Canadians need to know more. If we’d taken more time to perform this review, that would have allowed for some of that.
I fully endorse the draft report as it’s written now, and I endorse what Senator Tannas would like to add, with the modifications proposed by Senator Simons. I would want to be on the record because I’ve been sitting here doing my work and providing my best advice. If the government doesn’t take it, so be it — on to the next amount of work we are here to do.
Senator Batters: Many of these points about the ability to have a full study and that sort of thing are in the actual draft report, which we’re going to look at after we deal with this observation. Many of those points are in there.
What we’re looking at right now is Senator Tannas’s observation, which is now down to two paragraphs. When I look at it again, it starts out:
In its message to the Senate concerning amendments to Bill C-4, the House of Commons asserted that there exists a longstanding tradition . . . .
So, I maintain my position that some in the Senate have also asserted that, but now that I look back to see that it says, “In its message to the Senate concerning amendments to Bill C-4, the House of Commons asserted . . . .” The remainder of that paragraph is all about that.
Then it says that the majority of the committee does not concur with this position. However, I note that I don’t think there was even a standing vote on the message to the Senate about the amendments to Bill C-4. I believe it passed on division, but there wasn’t even a standing vote. Frankly, if members of this committee felt that strongly about that, maybe they should have voiced it at that time. I feel like the entirety of this observation right now is again trying to relitigate Part 4 of Bill C-4, which some of us on this committee supported and some of us on this committee opposed.
The second paragraph is really just kind of stating some “mom and apple pie” initiatives and doesn’t add a lot of weight. The whole first paragraph is about the message on Bill C-4, and the second paragraph — aside from saying the majority of the committee doesn’t agree with the message on Bill C-4, though they didn’t cause a vote on it — then the rest of it is just “mom and apple pie.” I don’t think it adds a lot. I think we should leave that aside and get on with making sure the short report is as good as it can be with our limited time to deal with it.
[Translation]
Senator Moreau: On this issue, I will elaborate a bit on what Senator Tannas said in his introduction. There is a long tradition of consensus in adding points to a report. That is obvious. I listened very carefully to everyone around the table and there is no consensus. Some people have completely different perspectives on the Senate’s ability to intervene on legislation that affects the Canada Elections Act.
For my part, I would say that I could have agreed with some of what Senator Housakos said in his speech yesterday before the matter was referred to committee for the clause-by-clause study. I do believe that we should be very cautious about intervening in relation to the Canada Elections Act, even as a chamber of sober second thought.
In particular, I certainly remember mentioning, during the message on Bill C-4 and in my remarks before the vote, that our reservations must be directly proportional to the significance of the unanimous support for a provision relating to the Canada Elections Act in the House of Commons. Here, we have a bill that comes from the House of Commons with unanimous support.
On this issue, I think that I completely agree with the perspectives of Senator Housakos. I share the same reservations as Senator Saint-Germain about the proposed wording, particularly on the issue of privacy. My understanding — and this is the unanimous position of the officials who appeared before the committee, according to the testimony I read — is that this bill is a considerable improvement over the current situation and that it should be implemented for urgent reasons, namely to counter foreign interference, to ensure better protection and to discipline political parties in the future on a new way of doing things with respect to the information they hold.
In conclusion, since there is no consensus, I think we should go to a vote to decide whether to keep this addition or not.
[English]
Senator Pate: I want to thank Senator Clement for her very clear intervention.
I concur with that. I’d like to suggest that we vote. If there isn’t a clear consensus, we could indicate whatever percentage of us are in support, irrespective of the number of members on the committee.
The Chair: Senators, are you ready to have a vote on Senator Tannas’s observation? Before we go much further, we will be very clear on what the words of that suggested amendment are.
Senator Prosper: Just for some clarity, for my purposes, chair, with respect to Senator Tannas’s observation, is this vote for the text as an observation or for it to be included within the main body of the report?
The Chair: I thought this would be an observation, which would follow the report, though it’s attached to the same document. It is an observation. It’s the usual way we report. Are there any other questions on that?
All right. If we’re going to have a vote, we have to know what we’re going to vote on. I guess it’s up to Senator Tannas to put forward the words that he would like to see included.
Senator Tannas: Lines 6 through 11, I think, would stay the same. For line 13, we would take out, “The Committee does not concur with this position.” I heard enough people say that’s the case — or do we say that either the majority or the minority of the committee disagrees with the decision?
The Chair: It’s up to you to tell us what you would like.
Senator Tannas: I would say, “The majority of the committee does not concur with this position.” If it is defeated, then I think we take it out completely.
The Chair: There were words that Senator Simons suggested adding. Do you want to leave it the way it’s written, “. . . Canada Elections Act,” period?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think it’s cleaner.
Senator Simons: Having suggested the words, and having listened to Senator Dalphond, there are other parts of this act I’m also unhappy about. It’s true that there are things we didn’t get to delve into enough regarding foreign interference and AI. My concerns go beyond privacy, so perhaps — in deference to what Senator Saint-Germain and Senator Dalphond have said — I will withdraw my well-intentioned suggestion.
Senator Tannas: Okay, so we would completely delete lines 17 through 21.
The Chair: That being the case, Senator Tannas, I would ask you to read the whole of the amendment as it now reads. Then we will vote on that.
Senator Tannas: This is entitled “Observations.” It reads:
In its message to the Senate concerning amendments to Bill C-4, the House of Commons asserted that there exists a longstanding tradition whereby the Senate defers to the House on amendments to the Canada Elections Act. It emphasized that such deference is particularly appropriate where amendments have received unanimous support from all recognized parties in the House and pertain to the regulation of candidates representing political parties seeking election to that chamber.
Beginning at line 13, it reads:
The majority of the committee does not concur with this position. As a constituent element of Parliament, the Senate holds a constitutionally mandated responsibility to review and scrutinize all legislation, including proposed amends to the Canada Elections Act.
The Chair: Do senators have questions about the wording of the proposed amendment that Senator Tannas is putting forward? If not, we’ll now have a roll call vote on this amendment. The “yeas” are for the observation. The “nays” are against the observation.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Clement?
Senator Clement: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Hébert?
Senator Hébert: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: No.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 9; nays, 5; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: This observation will be attached to the report.
Senator Batters: Since it was a vote of only 9-5, I ask that it be noted that the majority of the committee agreed with this observation. Otherwise, it looks as if it is unanimous, and it absolutely is not.
The Chair: It’s clear that the majority of the committee does not concur with this position in accordance with the vote.
Senator Batters: However, to start at the start, I don’t agree with the whole thing. As I said, this is just relitigating the parts —
The Chair: In the introduction you want a sentence —
Senator Batters: I would like a sentence saying, “The majority of the committee agrees with this observation:” Then you can have the whole observation that was just voted on.
The Chair: Are there any questions on that? Does everyone agree that correctly reflects the decision of the committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All right. Colleagues, we’ll now move to consideration of the report. In order to facilitate this discussion, we’ll go with the senators who want to suggest changes. We’ll go line by line.
Senator Batters: I don’t have anything until line 15. Obviously, we need to fill in at the end of line 14 with respect to how many hours, which is probably just going to be a little over one, hopefully.
But then, when it says, “. . . it heard from X witnesses,” obviously, the number is zero. I think we should also note there — as the clerk told us at the beginning of the meeting — how many were invited and then either declined or did not respond. It sounds like there were four such witnesses.
Also, the next sentence, on line 16, says, “The committee has also received numerous written submissions from interested parties.” I’m wondering what the case would be here. Maybe the clerk can tell us if we received any written submissions we were unable to translate and distribute to committee members. If so, I think we should note that because it is important.
Then there are just a few grammatical things: At line 18, where it says, “. . . tabled on June 4 . . .,” we should just say, “. . . tabled in the Senate on June 4 . . . .” I would suggest that be added in. Also, on line 22, instead of saying, “The committee noted . . .,” it should say, “The committee stated . . . .” That’s just a minor grammatical thing. Everything else is okay.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: I am looking at lines 24 and 25. It should say:
Despite the committee’s clearly expressed need for additional time to properly examine Bill C-25, the motion adopted by the Senate imposed an extremely compressed timeframe.
The word “Senate” should replace “government” because we are not a puppet of the government; we adopted that motion.
The Chair: So it should read, “. . . the government motion adopted by the Senate . . . .”
Senator Dalphond: If you want, yes, it should read, “. . . the government motion adopted by the Senate . . . .”
The Chair: All right.
Senator Dalphond: I have others. I move that at line 34, for “The government-imposed timeframe . . .,” we remove the word “government.” Thus, it should read:
The imposed timeframe for this bill has forced the committee to speed through things required to provide the thoughtful, measured advice on which the committee prides itself.
I would delete the rest of the sentence. The words “Respectfully submitted” would be the end of it.
Senator Simons: Can you repeat that?
The Chair: There is a period at the end of “. . . prides itself.”
Senator Dalphond: Then I would delete the rest, which says, “Being put in this position by the government erodes the constitutional role . . . .” It is covered by the observation. As a matter of fact, to a certain extent, it contradicts the observation, so I would delete that. Then, would the observation be part of this or after “Respectfully submitted”?
The Chair: The observation would follow the word “agenda” on the sentence you want to take out.
Senator Moreau: So it would now follow the word “itself.”
The Chair: If we agree. We have to vote on this.
Senator Dalphond: I am agreeable with this. I think the message is more nuanced. Thank you.
The Chair: The last sentence that Senator Dalphond wants to take out is going to be a controversial issue, so we’ll deal with it after we hear from Senator Moreau.
Senator Moreau: As I concur with Senator Dalphond, I have no more observations to make. He mentioned everything I was going to raise.
Senator Batters: I want to keep that last sentence. I think that is an important part of this whole process that this committee expressed itself on, including in the pre-study report on Bill C-25, where we expressed the definite need to hear additional witnesses and have a fuller committee study when we actually had the bill referred to us.
I believe we need to retain that last sentence. It is something that the steering committee members voiced at this committee’s meetings and also in the chamber in speeches about the government motion. Also, instead of entirely taking out line 34, instead of saying, “government-imposed timeframe,” as exists now, what about the words “the timeframe imposed by the government motion for this bill”? That would be factual.
Senator Pate: I support what Senator Batters just put forth because the vote was very tight, and the majority of the committee voted in favour of not accepting the time frame for this bill.
The Chair: For the last sentence, we’re going to hold for a second, and we’re going to vote on that. However, Senator Batters is now changing line 34 in a way that’s different from what Senator Dalphond proposed, so I want to see if we can get consensus on that.
Senator Batters: Line 34 would say, “The timeframe imposed by the government motion . . . for this bill has forced the committee to speed . . . .”
The Chair: So, there is consensus on everything, unless there are other questions, except the last sentence.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There is a translation problem here. Is this the time to bring it up?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It is at line 3 of the second page in French.
[Translation]
When the French says “fournir les avis avisés,” you must agree that “avis avisés” is redundant. Instead, I would suggest saying, “fournir les avis réfléchis.”
Senator Hébert: Or “éclairés.”
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes, “éclairés” is even better. Let’s go with “éclairés.”
[English]
The Chair: Is there consensus on Senator Miville-Dechêne’s comment on the French-language version? Okay. There is consensus on everything except the last sentence.
Do you want to hold a roll call vote on the last sentence? If you want the last sentence to stay, the answer is “yes.” If you want the last sentence to be extricated, the answer is “no.”
The last sentence starts in line 36, saying:
Being put in this position by the government erodes the constitutional role of the Senate as a Chamber of sober second thought, reducing the institution to a rubber stamp for the government’s legislative agenda.
Are there any questions about that? We will hold a roll call vote: For those in favour of retaining the sentence, the answer is “yes.” For those in favour of extricating the sentence, the answer is “no.”
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Arnot?
Senator Arnot: Yes.
The Chair: The Honourable Senator Batters?
Senator Batters: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Dalphond?
Senator Dalphond: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Hébert?
Senator Hébert: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Martin?
Senator Martin: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Moreau?
Senator Moreau: No.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Pate?
Senator Pate: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Poirier?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Prosper?
Senator Prosper: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Simons?
Senator Simons: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator Tannas?
Senator Tannas: Yes.
Mr. Labrosse: The Honourable Senator K. Wells?
Senator K. Wells: No.
Mr. Labrosse: Yeas, 9; nays, 4; abstentions, 0.
The Chair: The committee voted to retain the sentence as originally proffered.
Senator Dalphond: It should say the majority voted to retain it, as we have done for the other part.
Senator Hébert: It was not unanimous. With all due respect, I’d like the same thing we did for the observation. We have to say, “The majority of the committee . . . .”
Senator Batters: It would then say, “The majority of the committee agreed that . . . .”
The Chair: Okay. If there are no questions about that, we’re finished with the report.
Colleagues, we’ll continue: Are members in agreement with the observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations —
Senator Moreau: As before, we agree on division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Absolutely fine.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to 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 I report the bill, with observations, to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, I believe we have completed the work.
There are a few things I would like to say. First, thank you to all members on the committee and all colleagues who came here today for discussion during clause-by-clause consideration. Thank you for the discussion. Before we conclude, I would like to thank all senators for their engagement and active participation in the committee’s work over the course of the past week or so as we undertook pre-studies and examined bills that are priorities for the government. It is very important. I would like to thank everyone for making sure we were able to collaborate and get that work done, pursuant to the mandate that we have for this committee.
The committee has been remarkably efficient, accomplishing a significant amount of work under very tight timelines. Your collaboration, dedication and commitment have been instrumental in making that possible. That has been greatly appreciated.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks to our committee staff: the interpreters, pages, analysts and everyone who supported these meetings, giving extraordinary effort to assist us in getting this work done. Your work behind the scenes in preparing meetings and reports and in assisting the committee throughout clause-by-clause consideration has been invaluable.
I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge that today is the last meeting with the committee for one of our analysts, Dana Phillips, before she begins a new temporary assignment. Dana, thank you for your hard work, professionalism, proficiency, dedication and commitment to supporting the committee. It has been very much appreciated by all the committee members. I think you do remarkable work, and I’m sad to see you go.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: We are grateful for your contributions and wish you every success in your new role.
Finally, senators, this is our final meeting before the summer adjournment. I hope everyone has a restful, enjoyable and safe summer. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)