The Senate

Honourable senators, I want you to know that I do, indeed, find you all honourable. I truly believe that we are all working together toward what we each feel are the best interests of Canadians. I want to believe the purpose of our chamber is equal to that of the other place. I want to believe that we are parliamentarians who are respectful of but not subservient to the whims of the elected chamber. I firmly believe that we are a chamber of sober second thought. That is why I rise today disheartened by this motion.

On May 7, 2026, when we considered the pre-study motion that included Bill C-25, Senator Moreau said:

When we combine pre-studies with the actual study of the bill, we do not reduce the substance of the debate. We actually increase the time given to senators to conduct a proper, in-depth study of the legislative proposals before them, particularly in the case of government bills.

In theory, that sounds like a decent proposal, “. . . a proper, in‑depth study of the legislative proposals . . .” However, not only did we have to rush through Bill C-25, we were not even able to hear from everyone we would have wanted to. That is because the timelines were so tight that they allowed for no flexibility to accommodate the schedules of expert witnesses. We all know how important they are to us in our studies.

We focused our studies mainly on privacy concerns and the issue of the longest ballot movement but had insufficient time to properly study the portions of the bill pertaining to “deepfakes” and foreign interference.

I recently attended a round table on AI and safeguarding democracy from malicious domestic and foreign actors. The testimony of those experts would certainly contribute to a proper, in-depth study. Yet, once again, the government is using a number of tactics in the book to curb debate.

The increased time promised has now been compressed. The response is: Either sit longer, sit outside our normal times or stay until the work is done.

Competing priorities, other Senate business and proper meals and sleep are, apparently, not within the government’s problem.

We must only ensure that the work gets done in the dictated time — never mind that the other side has had these bills for much longer.

Some will say what they have said before: that the Senate has no place, as an unelected chamber, weighing in on a bill about elections. But who else is better suited? We have no reliance on these rules and, therefore, can take a more measured and considered approach.

To paraphrase a question asked in the opening statements of the Rhinoceros Party leader, Mr. Sébastien CôRhino Côrriveau: Why would we let the winners of the last Stanley Cup dictate the rules of the hockey?

Putting aside the substance of the bill, let us turn to the issue at hand. This bill is not a matter of life or death for some Canadians, like Bill C-16 is. This bill is not about public safety and hate speech, like Bill C-9 was. As I said last week, I don’t appreciate rushing through legislation like this, but I understand why we do it in circumstances that affect the safety of Canadians.

Bill C-25 is not on the same level. Why must we rush it? Why must we forgo proper, in-depth study?

I have spoken with several members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs who have grave concerns about rushing forward with this legislation. Senators not on the committee have also voiced their concerns and frustrations. Today, my fellow members of the steering committee voiced their support for action.

Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion, as amended, be not now adopted, but that it be further amended:

1.by replacing the words “June 18” with the words “October 22” in point 2(e);

2.by replacing the words “7 p.m. on June 18” with the words “4 p.m. on October 22” in point 2(g); and

3.by replacing the words “12 p.m. on June 19” with the words “5 p.m. on October 27” in point 2(h).

Thank you.

I’m going to wait until all the copies of the amendment are distributed. Then I will move the amendment.

In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Prosper, seconded by the Honourable Senator Black, that the motion, as amended, be not now adopted, but that it be further amended:

1. by replacing the words “June 18” — may I dispense?

Honourable senators, as you’re aware, I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. As Senator Prosper pointed out, the steering committee members — Senator Batters, Senator Miville-Dechêne, Senator Prosper and I — all agreed that this motion has strong merit. I can say that I’ve spoken with the Independent Senators Group senators who are on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and they also agree, in my opinion, because it’s eminently reasonable. What we’re doing is asking that we be able to deal with this in the ordinary course of time in September and October and report on a reasonable date in the future. We’ll lose about 75 days. Let me explain why.

I stand here today not to oppose the bill and not to oppose the government’s legislative agenda, and I certainly do not suggest that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is unwilling to undertake difficult work. The committee has demonstrated precisely the opposite.

Over the last few months, the Government of Canada has asked the Senate, in particular the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, to undertake a series of studies on an expedited basis. The committee has responded. The government identified Bill C-14 as a legislative priority. So did the committee. The government asked the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to conduct a pre-study of Bill C-25 and report by June 4, which was a very short time frame. We did that. The government then asked us to look at Bill C-16 and study that on an expedited basis. The committee did so and continues to do so on Bill C-16.

Colleagues, I recount that history for a reason. It demonstrates that this discussion is not about willingness. It is not about workload. It demonstrates that it’s not about resistance to the government’s agenda. The committee has repeatedly adjusted its schedule, accelerated its work and accommodated requests made in the public interest. Respectfully, the committee’s record of cooperation and accommodation deserves serious consideration by senators when it advises the Senate that additional study is required on a bill of this nature. Indeed, the committee has repeatedly demonstrated that it understands precisely those responsibilities. That history is important because it brings us to the question now before us.

Bill C-25 is an important piece of legislation, but it is important for different reasons. The urgency associated with Bill C-14 on bail reform, Bill C-16 on protection of victims and Bill C-9 on hate was readily apparent. Those bills responded to criminal law concerns, amending the Criminal Code. They engaged questions of public safety, victims’ rights, correctional administration, court operations and concerns raised by the provinces and territories and Attorneys General throughout Canada, including the federal Attorney General, as well as law enforcement agencies and justice stakeholders. The committee understood those concerns, and we responded. So did the Senate.

Bill C-25 raises concerns that are no less significant, but they’re fundamentally different. There’s no reasonable argument for the urgency of Bill C-25 when it’s compared to these other three bills that are all related to the Criminal Code and public safety. It is not in the same league as the urgency for those Criminal Code amendments. It concerns a long-term architecture of democratic participation.

Bill C-25 concerns the conduct of federal elections, democratic participation, privacy rights, human rights, and democratic principles and values in Canada. It concerns the collection, use, protection and retention of personal information belonging to Canadian citizens. It concerns foreign interference. It concerns emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, “deepfakes” and the growing capacity to manipulate information in ways that were scarcely imaginable only a few years ago.

It is not about the names and addresses on a voters’ list and where certain individuals live. It’s about micro-messaging: Targeted messages from computer to computer, and from computer to cellphone. It’s a Cambridge Analytica scandal that’s in the making if we don’t address these issues. It’s big-data corporations like Palantir, which can collect 3,000 data points on any American voter in the United States.

The committee has already had the opportunity to undertake a limited pre-study of the bill, as Senator Prosper indicated. That pre-study produced a report, which explicitly stated that the committee did not have sufficient time to fully examine a number of significant issues.

The committee reported that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada proposed amendments that the members did not have adequate time to fully examine. The committee reported that it was unable to hear from representatives of the three main political parties in Canada because of scheduling limitations. The committee itself advised the Senate that further work remained to be done.

This is not a new concern arising from today’s debate or from the motion now before us; it is a concern that the committee has already formally reported to the Senate. The committee advised that it had insufficient time to hear all relevant perspectives. It advised that the proposed amendments from the Chief Electoral Officer had not been fully examined. It advised that additional testimony concerning foreign interference, artificial intelligence and “deepfake” technologies would have been beneficial for the committee.

The motion before us does not create those concerns; it seeks to address those concerns that the Senate has already been told exist.

Since that time, the evidence supporting a careful study has only become stronger. The committee has heard from leading experts in privacy, democratic governance, election administration and information integrity. The Chief Electoral Officer has identified areas where legislative refinement may be warranted.

Former Assistant Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham and other experts have increasingly highlighted the increasingly complex relationship between political data, personal privacy, democratic participation and public trust. Witnesses have reminded us that Canada does not operate in isolation. Around the world, democratic institutions continue to confront the lessons of Cambridge Analytica — concerns regarding voter data management, foreign interference, increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence tools and the manipulation of information on an unprecedented scale.

These are not theoretical concerns, and they are not partisan concerns. They are concerns that go directly to the relationship between citizens and their democracy. They are concerns that affect every Canadian voter. They affect minorities, regions, political participation and confidence in democratic institutions, and they deserve to be examined carefully.

Colleagues, the committee has explored numerous ways to complete this study within the timetable proposed. We have explored numerous ways to reconcile the scope of the bill with the time available; yet, we remain faced with a timetable that would effectively require the committee to receive the bill, hear witnesses, consider the amendments, undertake its clause-by-clause review, prepare a report and return the legislation to the Senate within approximately one day of committee study.

I submit, respectfully, that this is not a question of effort; it’s a question of reasonableness. Indeed, history teaches us that democratic institutions are best protected when Parliament proceeds carefully rather than quickly. The issue is not whether committees can work harder; the issue is whether committees can work thoroughly, up to the expected standard of the Senate. Thoroughness is not the enemy of efficiency. In legislative review, it is often the source of it.

A committee can only report on what it has had time to discover, and no committee can report on evidence it has not had the opportunity to hear.

The greatest legislative risks are often not the ones we identify but the ones we have never had the opportunity to find. Parliament is rarely criticized for asking too many questions before legislation is adopted; more often, it is criticized for questions it failed to ask.

Honourable colleagues, the motion before us is not intended to delay Bill C-25 indefinitely nor is it intended to frustrate the government’s legislative agenda. Rather, it seeks to provide the committee with a realistic opportunity to perform the task that the Senate itself has assigned to it.

Senators, that is why I support extending the committee’s reporting deadline to October 22, 2026. October 22 reflects the first realistic opportunity, following the summer adjournment, for the committee to hear a full range of witnesses, consider potential amendments, undertake its clause-by-clause review and complete a study consistent with the committee’s ordinary practices. It is not intended to delay the bill indefinitely; it is intended to ensure that the Senate receives the benefit of a complete committee study.

Let me be equally clear on another point: The committee does not challenge the authority of the Senate to establish its own timetable nor does it seek to substitute its judgment for that of the chamber. The Senate is the master of its own proceedings.

It is precisely because the Senate possesses that authority that committees have a responsibility to provide the chamber with their candid assessment. When a proposed timetable may affect the quality of the legislative review, I say that you should be concerned.

The purpose of the motion before us is not to challenge the authority of the Senate; it is to assist the Senate in exercising that authority with the benefit of information that only the committee can provide.

Respectfully, the committee is attempting to advise the Senate regarding the practical consequences of the timetables currently proposed. The committee is not asking the Senate to trust its conclusion; the committee is asking the Senate to provide sufficient time for it to reach a conclusion.

The principle of this legislation is of great significance. The level of scrutiny that Canadians expect and deserve is of great significance. The Senate is uniquely poised and positioned to provide that scrutiny. What remains unclear is why the work must be completed within a time frame that is not commensurate with either the scope of the legislation or the significance of the issues that it raises.

Honourable senators, this is ultimately a question of parliamentary judgment. It’s about an examination that is incomplete: Important witnesses have not been heard, proposed amendments were not fully examined and significant issues relating to privacy, foreign interference and artificial intelligence remain deserving of further scrutiny.

The committee’s responsibility is to provide that advice. The Senate’s responsibility is to decide what weight it wishes to give it. Respectfully, that decision should be made with the full awareness of the committee’s advice and the consequences that may flow from accepting a compressed timetable.

Therefore, I ask colleagues to support the motion before us. I ask you to support the ability of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to conduct the careful, evidence-based, non‑partisan study that this legislation deserves. I ask you to respect the judgment of the committee members who have already advised the Senate that additional scrutiny is very much required.

Honourable senators, this institution performs some of its best work through its committees. Committees hear evidence, test assumptions, discover unintended consequences and improve legislation. This is not an obstacle to good government; it is one of the ways good government is achieved.

The importance of Bill C-25 is undeniable. The need to study it properly is equally undeniable. The only question before us is whether the Senate wishes the study to occur under conditions that permit the committee to perform its work fully. The motion before us seeks only to ensure that possibility and necessity are not mistaken for one another.

Colleagues, the committee is not asking for special treatment, it’s not asking to defeat the bill and it’s not asking for unlimited time. It is simply advising the Senate that it has already reported that there are huge evidence gaps in the study so far.

The Legal Committee sets a very high standard for professional proficiency. The principle of sober second thought demands nothing less. We need the time required to meet that high standard. Sober second thought should not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, those should never become the same thing.

I support Senator Prosper’s amendment, and I ask you to do the same for those reasons. Thank you.

Senator Downe, are you on debate or asking a question?

A question if there’s time.

There is not a lot of time. First of all, we have to ask if Senator Arnot wants to answer a question, and he will have to ask for more time to answer it.

I would like to answer any questions posed, and I would like the time to do so if the Senate agrees.

So, is leave granted, honourable senators?

I hear a no.

On debate, Senator Moreau.

I had asked to speak in this debate.

I recognized Senator Moreau first.

Senator Moreau, I recognized you first. Shall I give you the floor, or would you like to yield the floor?

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you, Senator Moreau. I will be brief. There was an agreement at the steering committee, and I wanted to say a few words on this.

I support my colleague Senator Prosper’s amendment. My position is not ideological. I judge these issues on a case-by-case basis. It seems unrealistic to expect that we can seriously complete our consideration of Bill C-25 in a single day, just to satisfy the government. This flies in the face of our duty to provide sober second thought on legislation. We’re being asked to rubber-stamp bills. We’re being asked to act like doormats.

As you know, I recently spoke in this chamber to point out that we needed to accelerate the work on Bill C-16, which seeks to protect victims. It is eagerly awaited by groups representing victims of crime.

Quebec is going through a difficult period, with women in particular feeling unsafe because of the high number of femicides. There have been 11 so far this year.

There is also a high number of accused in cases of domestic violence who have breached their release conditions.

Since last Wednesday, we have heard from 31 witnesses on Bill C-16. We have been working very hard, and even added meetings on Friday and today.

Getting back to Bill C-25, which amends the Canada Elections Act and is at the heart of debate, we were asked to conduct a pre‑study, which we did. We held four meetings over two days. We heard from the minister and about a dozen witnesses from various organizations, and yet we did say in our report that we needed more time to conduct a solid study.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, by comparison, studied Bill C-25 from May 5 to June 2 — an entire month — and heard from 27 witnesses.

Asking for an extra day or two to hear from the relevant witnesses on this bill is not unreasonable. The issues raised are complex. They include foreign interference in our politics and how to limit it, deepfakes and stricter political party financing rules. The experts we heard from were highly critical of the measures set out in this bill to protect voters’ personal information. Elections Canada suggested nine amendments.

In short, I don’t feel that our work is done, and I still fail to understand the urgency of adopting Bill C-25 at lightning speed. Thank you.

If I could go first and the leader could wrap up, if that’s agreeable, because then he can —

Senator Moreau, are you prepared to yield the floor?

Is leave granted?

I’ll be brief, Your Honour and colleagues.

Senator Arnot, as chair of the committee, and other senators have spoken and raised serious concerns. I was not aware of this issue until I heard the amendment from my colleague Senator Prosper and others who have spoken on it.

I guess the question I have — and this is why I wanted the leader in the Senate to go last — is whether there is any room for a compromise here. If you’re asking for a few more days, can we come to a consensus that a few more days will be granted, rather than wait for October, since it also appears to be a government priority? That was the question I was going to ask you, but since I can’t ask you, I’ll just say a few more words on that.

Colleagues, it’s important that the Senate, as you indicated, Senator Arnot, have the responsibility to do the work that’s before us and that the new and improved Senate — I hear that so often it should almost be trademarked by somebody. But I’m from the old Senate. I’ll tell you, colleagues, the old Senate stayed to do the work. There was one year the House of Commons had adjourned in June; we left the Senate on July 20.

Colleagues, we’re looking at 12 weeks ahead of us. To stay extra time now to address these concerns would seem to be the proper course of action rather than the fall, and I just throw that out there for consideration. If we have a responsibility for this bill that is before us and the government wants it, 12 weeks is a pretty long break. If we’re here until July 20 again, we still have eight weeks. We did it; nobody passed away from extra work, and we got the legislation concluded with the proper scrutiny that Canadians are counting on us to do.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Would Senator Downe entertain a question?

Senator Downe, with the proposition that you’re making — staying longer — does that mean that just the members of the committee stay longer or the whole Senate stays longer? I want to ensure that it’s not seen as a punishing measure that we’re putting in place for senators because of the delays that are being shortened.

I just want to understand the situation that you were speaking of: Was the whole Senate staying, or were just a few senators staying?

The Senate adjourned on July 20, so committees met, but we were all here on July 19 and July 20 and a few weeks before that. As I recall, and this was from my memory, I think we sat for a couple weeks. Then I think the committee sat for a week, and then we came back. But for the bulk of July, we were in Ottawa.

I still recall my colleague former senator Frank Mahovlich say he was out for lunch at a restaurant, and people said, “What are you doing in Ottawa? The House is adjourned,” because all the media were saying Parliament was adjourned. They didn’t realize the Senate was still sitting. We were here for at least three solid weeks, and the committee may have sat an extra week to get the work done.

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion in amendment will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion in amendment will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Is there agreement on the length of the bell?

Is leave granted for 15 minutes?

The vote will take place at 8:37 p.m. Call in the senators.