Strong and Free Elections Act
Bill to Amend--Third Reading
June 18, 2026
Moved third reading 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.
She said: Honourable senators, it is an honour for me to rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-25 on behalf of our colleague Senator Farah Mohamed.
May I begin by offering my sincere thanks on behalf of all our colleagues in the Senate to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. When I began my tenure in the Senate, serving on the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance with our colleague retired senator Mockler, I fondly recall the hours and hours and intense work of that committee.
As I have become more acquainted and been fortunate to sit in on some of the debate at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, may I offer my humble thanks for your collegial dedication and, dare I say, intense scrutiny of the many pieces of legislation this spring. You have been asked to provide your best advice, and I believe I can speak for all my colleagues when I offer my thanks for your efforts.
While I will not profess to be nearly as eloquent as our colleague Senator Mohamed, I do have a sense of responsibility to offer a few remarks in support of Bill C-25.
Colleagues, I mentioned the work of Senate committees a few moments ago. Our committee work, particularly the recommendations and advice contained therein, is a source of pride in the Senate. I have considered my appointment to the Senate an honour and such a privilege to be of service. It is also one of responsibility.
The sense of responsibility was acutely clear for me during my time with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, as we refer to it. At that time, in 2024, the committee included all recognized parties and most groups in the Senate.
The 2024 National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions recommended that the government should engage political parties to determine whether party nomination processes and leadership conventions should be included within the framework of the Canada Elections Act.
Bill C-25 incorporates this recommendation. Nomination and leadership contests and their contestants will benefit from new protections against undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, intimidation and pretense or contrivance, impersonation, misleading publications, unauthorized use of a computer and broadcasting outside Canada.
May I remind senators that the National Security and Intelligence Committee is formed of senators and members of Parliament from all parties. The decisions, recommendations and reports of the committee are the reasoned work of the committee.
Just like Bill C-25, this legislation for our consideration has been agreed to by all major parties in the House of Commons. It now comes to us, and I am recommending to our colleagues to accept the advice given to us by the elected members.
Not everyone agrees all the time, just as not all recommendations from NSICOP and other Senate committees or suggested amendments respond to perspectives heard at committee.
One of the matters heard repeatedly and uppermost in recent news cycles is the matter of privacy. In that context, I would also like to take a moment to talk about the new, robust and stringent privacy requirements imposed on federal political parties.
As you all know, these measures stem from Part 4 of Bill C-4, which received Royal Assent on March 12 and clarified Parliament’s long-standing intent that federal political parties’ activities relating to personal information for electoral purposes are governed exclusively by the regime in the Canada Elections Act.
The strong and free elections act would build upon Bill C-4 by introducing new, robust and enforceable requirements for federal political parties’ privacy policies. This includes requiring personal information safeguards and disclosure obligations in the event of a data breach. We know that political parties occupy a unique constitutional position in Canada. Unlike commercial enterprises or government agencies, their core functions — political expression, organizing and contesting elections — are deeply rooted in the freedom of expression and association protected under section 2 of the Charter.
Many of us in this chamber have engaged in political activities like seeking office and volunteering for political parties.
Like the independent Senate and all of us, this matter of privacy is the new normal in the days of Facebook and Instagram. I would like to offer a particular thanks to Senator Deacon from Nova Scotia, and especially to Senator Hay, for all their efforts to enlighten and educate us by offering us the opportunity to learn about AI.
For all of us, this legislation and this understanding of the new world are works in progress. It is important to note that Bill C-25 establishes a privacy floor, not a ceiling.
Every house needs a foundation upon which to build. This bill establishes a necessary baseline for data protection and creates an enforceable standard of accountability that allows for future legislative refinement.
Colleagues, these amendments and others are responsive to recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Public Inquiry into Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. Parliament has entrusted responsibility to the independent Commissioner of Canada Elections for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act is complied with and enforced.
The commissioner’s work is an essential element to upholding Canadians’ trust in the integrity of our electoral system. Bill C-25 proposes to strengthen the commissioner’s enforcement capacity by providing her with additional tools to address violations of the Canada Elections Act swiftly and effectively.
One example of this is the increase to the maximum administrative monetary penalties, which are low in the Canada Elections Act compared to those in other pieces of federal legislation, such as anti-spam legislation, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Competition Act.
The commissioner will be required to consider whether a violation was committed by, or in association with, a foreign entity when determining the value of an administrative monetary penalty.
As you are aware, the bill also includes new abilities for the commissioner to order an individual to appear before investigators to facilitate investigations, as well as to order the preservation and production of evidence. This will not only streamline investigations but will also reduce the risk of evidence being lost or destroyed.
These changes are long overdue and will align the powers of the Commissioner of Canada Elections with those provided to her counterparts, such as the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner. They will also help reduce delays in completing investigations and holding those who break the law to account in a timely manner. Bill C-25 will also provide the commissioner with the authority to investigate and hold accountable those who conspire, attempt or support others in contravening the act.
The Canada Elections Act has long been recognized as a fundamental pillar of Canadian democracy. It is renowned for its election safeguards, robust political financing rules and transparency requirements, as a result of continual, gradual updates and improvements. Bill C-25 continues Parliament’s tradition of improving the Canada Elections Act to respond to lessons learned and to address new and emerging challenges.
Honourable senators, as an essential element of Canada’s Parliament, we have a responsibility to ensure that our elections continue to be safe and secure. This bill proposes a suite of amendments to the Canada Elections Act and is the expression of our commitment to continue safeguarding our democratic institutions and ensuring that our electoral processes remain secure, transparent and fair. The bill lays out rules that ensure our elections are free of undue influence, malicious interference and financial misconduct.
While I have highlighted only a select number of the measures contained in Bill C-25, the bill as a whole reflects a thoughtful, necessary effort to modernize our electoral framework. Ultimately, Bill C-25 is a necessary step to be taken now to enable the office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections to do the necessary work they are prepared to do immediately to safeguard the electoral process and democracy that we hold so dear. I commend its passage to my colleagues.
Your efforts to support this bill today will enable the “Strong and Free Elections Act” to ensure that our federal elections and democratic processes remain some of the most robust and well protected in the world.
Thank you, colleagues. Mahsi’cho.
Honourable senators, I would like to thank Senator Duncan for her thoughtful intervention and her service as both an elected and a non-elected parliamentarian. In both roles she has served Canada well and continues to work to fulfill her responsibilities every day.
Colleagues, I’ll be briefer than I was on Tuesday. I promise.
Bill C-25 contains — as Senator Duncan was saying — many excellent and long-awaited amendments to the Canada Elections Act. Senator Mohamed did a truly excellent job of outlining the many important reforms included in the bill at her second reading speech.
These include fixing the challenge of the longest ballots, strengthening our defences against foreign interference, modernizing our approach to disinformation, and better protecting candidates, party staff and election workers. These are important reforms.
Bill C-25 also includes extensive finance and spending reforms, which are spread across clauses 15, 17, 19, 24 and 26. As Senator Duncan reminded us, over the decades, the rules around federal political party finances have been carefully codified in the Canada Elections Act, including how much money can be contributed to a political party, the accepted forms of contributions, how much can be spent in an election campaign and how those funds must be accounted for.
We are careful because a lack of uniform rules could give one party an enormous and long-lasting advantage over others. Money pays for staff, data, ads, polling and legal resources. It can also have a corrupting influence, as the world has witnessed in vivid terms over the past 18 months. No one debates why political party finances must be managed so carefully.
However, in this digital era, I would argue that data is even more powerful and valuable than money. Data is like uranium: It is immensely beneficial in medicine, energy and industry, but it is also capable of building horrific atomic bombs. I raise this analogy because I am deeply concerned about the lack of oversight in terms of how federal political parties collect, retain, use and share the identifiable personal information of Canadian electors and youth over 14 years of age.
Without uniform controls, voter data becomes even more powerful than finances. That’s because money buys data infrastructure, and data infrastructure multiplies the value of money.
Colleagues, exclusive control over the identifiable personal information of electors is a newer and much less understood threat than concerns over finances. Our democratic systems have had decades of experience managing the corrupting influence of money, as Senator Duncan articulated very well. However, they have had almost none when it comes to managing micro-targeting, voter suppression or psychological profiling, when these tactics are conducted digitally and at scale.
Obviously, the greatest danger is when one party holds both money and rich data. That is precisely why so many democracies have begun to regulate both, including jurisdictions like the EU, the U.K. and New Zealand, along with the Provinces of B.C. and Quebec in Canada.
Voters generally know when a candidate outspends an opponent, but they have no idea when they are being targeted with messaging that is specifically engineered for their personal psychological profile, or when their neighbours are receiving voter suppression messaging.
We have heard a lot about surveillance pricing of late, where retailers use our personal information to identify a price based on their calculation of the maximum we’re willing to pay. Governments are quickly moving to ban this practice, which has been used increasingly for more than a decade. When that same technique is applied in the political sphere, it’s called “micro-targeting.”
Colleagues, when personal information is used to influence an intended target’s decision, without the awareness and consent of that target, it undermines institutional trust at the very moment when the target discovers what has been happening.
That’s one of the reasons why I believe the elements in clause 36 will come back to bite Canada. We have no idea what our 14 political parties may choose to do with the flexibility that the three national political parties have negotiated. In large measure, that’s because there is no party disclosing what data they currently control and how those data are used.
Here is an overview of the potential problems and conditions that clause 36 creates:
First, there are no consistent minimum standards that the federal political party privacy regimes must adhere to. There is not that foundation, unfortunately, that Senator Duncan spoke about.
In the technical briefing, the officials admitted, when answering a question, that new higher administrative monetary penalties that have been put in place actually incentivize the political parties to have a weaker voluntary privacy regime.
Second, electors do not have the legal right to require federal political parties to obtain their consent before the party begins to collect and use their identifiable personal information — data that goes well beyond the information contained on Elections Canada’s permanent list of electors.
Third, electors have no legal right to know what identifiable personal information a federal political party has gathered on them, nor do they have the right to have those data deleted.
Fourth, federal political parties are not restricted from purchasing personal information from data brokers and combining that with information contained on the permanent list of electors.
Fifth, electors’ personal information can be shared with affiliated organizations like provincial political parties and with commercial third parties such as polling or social media firms, and this can happen without the electors’ knowledge or consent. Once shared, those third parties are no longer bound by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, only by the federal political party’s own internally drafted privacy policy.
Sixth, political parties are prohibited from selling electors’ personal information, but they are not prohibited from trading it for in-kind benefits.
Seventh, despite having no right to review what information a political party holds on them, the political party websites tell electors that they can write to the party to correct or update their information.
Eighth, parties face no restrictions on collecting identifiable personal information on minors, and only one party has explicitly chosen to not collect information on those under 14 years of age.
Ninth, in the event of a data breach, no oversight body is ever notified. The individuals affected are only notified if party officials take “appropriate steps” to review the situation, consult their own internal policies and determine that they think there is a “real risk” of “significant harm.” If they conclude otherwise, the affected electors will never know that their information was compromised.
Bill C-25 codifies the ability of our federal political parties to self-regulate the identifiable personal information of Canadian electors and youth over 14 years of age without oversight. This is what the operatives of our major political parties have negotiated.
Political data indicates that only 10% of Canadians are even aware that the federal political parties set their own privacy rules. Once made aware, only 10% of those Canadians support this approach.
Colleagues, despite Senator Housakos’ 43 years of experience working with the Conservative Party and despite the confidence he described on Tuesday that they “. . . go above and beyond in being careful with the data they collect and what they do with it . . . .” he would have no idea whether this is the case in any of the other 13 political parties. Additionally, he may or may not be an expert in cybersecurity risks and privacy law. I only know that I am not, but I listen carefully to those who are.
Colleagues, I support Bill C-25’s many constructive and long-overdue amendments to the Canada Elections Act but outside of the conditions enabled in clause 36. I deeply fear that the clause 36 amendments will not end well and that the outcome will undermine trust in our political parties and process.
I could be completely wrong in my assessment, but over the past three years of being troubled by this issue, I have not yet been corrected by any of the experts with whom I have spoken.
Importantly, because the government invoked closure on Monday night — the very day we received the bill — our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee could not hear from witnesses who could have provided testimony that might have rebutted these concerns.
The impossibly short timeline meant that the witnesses whom our committee wanted to hear from were unavailable yesterday, which was the one day that we had to study this bill.
As such, colleagues, I will abstain from this vote. I have not taken this decision lightly, and it is something that I have only done one other time at third reading of a government bill over my eight years in the Senate. I came to this conclusion that an abstention vote is the only way that I can register my serious concerns about clause 36 and the only way to constructively demonstrate that we tried our very best to fulfill our constitutional responsibility in this legislative review.
I do not believe that the federal political parties should be the masters of their own privacy rules and have unfettered control over their activities related to the data and privacy rights of electors. To those of you who share my discomfort, I encourage you not to vote against this bill but to join those who choose to abstain. I have absolutely no concern that this bill will pass, as both the Government Representative’s Office and the opposition will be supporting it.
Thank you, colleagues, for your attention.
Thank you, Senator Deacon, for your excellent intervention.
Honourable senators, I want to start out by thanking Senator Housakos for his second reading speech which, together with his comments at committee yesterday, helped me get things clear as to how I should vote.
During his second reading speech, Senator Housakos said:
When Parliament considers legislation affecting the electoral process, it’s considering the framework through which democratic accountability itself is exercised. Electoral laws are not simply another area of public policy. They establish the rules by which members of the House of Commons obtain their democratic mandate. For that reason, senators should exercise particular caution before frustrating the expressed will of the elected chamber on these matters.
We also heard something similar from the government when we made some suggestions by way of amendment on this very issue in Bill C-4 only a few weeks ago. In their public message to us, they said:
. . . there is a long tradition of the Senate deferring to the House of Commons on amendments to the Canada Elections Act, particularly those which have unanimous support of all recognized parties in the House and which govern the operations of candidates representing political parties seeking election to the House of Commons.
On top of those pretty clear messages, as we attempt to think our way through this, we received — and ultimately this Senate approved — a motion for lightspeed passage of this bill through our chamber, which is not consistent with sober second thought.
But we approved it. It was proposed by the government and approved by this chamber. MPs and political parties have made it crystal clear that they are unable to provide Canadians with privacy protection to the same level required of every other organization in Canada, and they have made it clear that they believe they are accountable for this. They are confident that they are accountable to the public for this decision that they have made and for this legislation created the way that it is, with the concerns, the downfalls, the foibles and the accommodations — let’s call it — that they feel they need in order to do what they need to do to hold free and fair elections.
They have made it clear that if something goes wrong, they will be the ones to wear this. Fair enough. I think that is true, but where does that leave us?
I believe we have done our best through the efforts we’ve made here, under the circumstances, with the work we did on Bill C-4, Part 4, to raise concerns and speak about them. There was media attention and so on. We know where that led us.
We’re going to come to a vote here shortly. I cannot vote for the bill because it does not deal with the issues of privacy protection that Canadians deserve, which I believe could, in fact, with effort, be protected better.
But I cannot vote against this bill because it has some important improvements and because I am, in fact, influenced by the messages we got. For me, abstention is purpose-built for this particular moment, and other senators may wish to consider it as well.
I’m confident that there are enough senators here to pass this bill on behalf of the parties and the House of Commons. I also believe that an abstention acknowledges that the House of Commons and the political parties bear the ultimate responsibility for this legislation, for better or worse.
I hope my comments give you some pause as we head for this vote. Thank you, colleagues.
Honourable senators, I will be brief speaking on third reading of Bill C-25, and thanks to Senator Tannas for quoting the essential elements of my argument. It saves a lot of time for my speech, and I won’t have to repeat them. I would like to be surgical and concise.
I do thank Senator Deacon because he has been advocating for this for a very long time. I know it comes from a genuine and sincere place but one that is really not connected with reality.
In your argument about data collection by political parties, you quoted what I said at committee yesterday. I think I highlighted what the Conservative Party generally collects. You said that I’m assuming I know what other parties collect. The truth of the matter is that, for those of us who traffic in the art of politics and in the element of election campaigns, it doesn’t matter what party we’re in; we spend a lot of time together. We spend a lot of time overlapping and interrelating. We spend a lot of time putting out contrary arguments and following each other very carefully in terms of what is being sold to constituents at the door. It doesn’t matter if you’re trafficking with Conservative or Liberal philosophies, the NDP, the Green Party or anything else or if you’re running for a Senate seat in Alberta.
I can tell you, honourable colleagues, that Canadians give up a whole lot more information to big tech data on social media on a daily basis or every time they fill out an application form to get a quote from an insurance company or a bank. The amount of information that Canadians willingly and, in some cases, on an obligated basis have to provide is far more intrusive: real-time location history, browsing behaviour and history, purchase history, contact lists and facial recognition; the list goes on and on. For political parties, however, the information collected is voluntary — and I underline that — and provided by supporters. It’s generally just phone numbers and email addresses. At any time, citizens can ask to be removed from mailing lists. Even while still a member, they can ask to be removed and not be solicited for money, membership or events, whatever the case may be.
Let’s also not forget that, for political parties to understand their communities, it is done through various outreach and engagement. Very often, you can’t exercise democracy without that outreach. Political parties are accountable. They are accountable through public security, public scrutiny, the media, Parliament and elections. Senator Tannas and Senator Deacon, I do welcome you to come join me in the next general election while we door knock and talk to Canadian citizens. I’ll be more than happy to share our data forms of the information we ask and the information that is given or not given.
Then you can do that same exercise a week later with another political party. Somehow I doubt they are reinventing the wheel. All of us are doing pretty much the same things.
We have the right to do what we’re doing here right now, which is to call it into question and debate it from both sides of the equation. You have your privilege to vote for or against. I have always strongly encouraged colleagues here to vote for or against. Abstention should be used on a very rare basis. You strongly believe about this, so express yourselves freely.
But I’ll say this: Every time there is boundary reform — and it’s required every decade or so because of population change — to adjust ridings or the electoral list, it’s always done on the House side. It’s never done on this side. We’re allowed to put in our two cents’ worth, which we’re doing right now, but there is a reason why it’s always done on the other side. It’s always done with consensus.
You’re right. When electoral reform regarding financial contributions was done, there was a consensus by everybody on the other side that things needed to be tightened up. They came to that consensus, and they tightened that up. Every time there are adjustments to boundaries, they come to a consensus. It’s not done lightly. MPs get together, and they have long discussions. Then, very often, those MPs go back to their constituencies, which means the riding associations of the various political parties, and people have input even on that. It’s even discussed at workshops and at general conventions of parties.
However, there is always this suspicion. We hold our political office holders in this country to suspicion levels that we don’t hold anyone else. We’re so disparaging of our democratic system, and we call it into question, particularly the upper house of this chamber. We stand on the shoulders of the House of Commons and the electoral results; that’s the reality. When we call them into question, we call ourselves and the legitimacy of this institution into question.
For that reason, in this particular instance, there is no need to look for monsters and ghosts around every corner. I support Bill C-25. I think we should move it expeditiously.
Are senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.
I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?
Is leave granted?
The vote will take place at 5:23. Call in the senators.
