The House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee met to study Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, hearing from six witnesses appearing as individuals: Gerald Chipeur, Eve Gaumond, Peter Loewen, Duff Conacher, Holly Ann Garnett, and Chris Tenove.
Gerald Chipeur, a lawyer, recommended four edits to Bill C-25: removing unnecessary privacy red tape, preserving the neutrality of election administration by requiring judicial review for all commissioner investigatory powers, preventing fraud by requiring 200 signatures for candidates and listing parties first on the ballot, and protecting freedom of expression by removing a proposed prohibition on commenting on election results, which he argued is overly broad and could chill legitimate speech. He disagreed with the need for new privacy rules, stating the cure is worse than the disease, and argued the 10% exception for third parties using their own funds is a huge loophole that should be removed to ensure equal treatment.
Eve Gaumond, a lawyer and Ph.D. student, argued that Bill C-25 is inadequate on personal information protection and online transparency. She recommended repealing sections 446.2, 446.3, and 446.4 to allow provincial privacy laws to apply to federal political parties until a national framework is created, and called for adapting transparency rules for AI-generated content, regulating influencers, and amending section 325.1 to require digital platforms to provide broader data access for researchers. She disagreed with Chipeur's view that no privacy problems have occurred, citing the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Peter Loewen, a dean at Cornell University and former federal boundary commissioner, argued for including more indigenous names in constituency names as an act of reconciliation and to better reflect Canada's history. He suggested the redistribution process could be revisited to allow earlier consultation on names, and cautioned that Parliament should not routinely alter names recommended by independent commissions, as that could lead to MPs naming their own ridings. He noted that Australia and Quebec name ridings after historical figures, but he sees value in geographic naming.
Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, argued that Bill C-25 is incomplete and weak, leaving huge loopholes that allow secret foreign and domestic interference. He criticized the 10% exception for third parties, saying it allows unlimited undisclosed spending, and called for a 0% threshold, a separate bank account for regulated activities funded only by individual Canadians, and lower spending limits for wealthy individuals. He also opposed changes that reduce disclosure of fundraising event locations, calling it a recipe for corruption, and advocated for fixed election dates to ensure fairness.
Holly Ann Garnett, a professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, argued that the 10% rule for third parties is a reasonable balance, as it allows non-contribution-based organizations to participate in elections without being pushed out. She noted that Canada's third party spending limits are already among the lowest in comparable democracies, and cautioned against overly restrictive measures that could stifle civil society. She supported the bill's steps on traceable contributions and foreign actor prohibitions, and said the bill strikes a good balance on disinformation, as proving intent is appropriate to protect free speech.
Chris Tenove, assistant director at UBC's Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, described Bill C-25 as a necessary security patch but said a more substantial update is needed. He flagged gaps around AI-generated content, false claims about electoral processes, chatbot errors and bias, and AI agents, and proposed giving the commissioner of Canada Elections the authority to require prompt removal of prohibited content, similar to B.C.'s law. He also called for transparency mechanisms for AI services and stronger platform regulation, and agreed with Loewen that regulating spending alone may not address future threats from AI agents.
The committee also heard from members who questioned witnesses on specific provisions. Michael Cooper (CPC) pressed Chipeur and Conacher on the 10% third party loophole, with both arguing it allows foreign funds to enter the system and should be removed. Élisabeth Brière (Lib.) asked Gaumond about the balance between protecting elections and free speech, with Gaumond saying the bill strikes a good balance but noting a vague provision on false representation. Christine Normandin (BQ) asked Gaumond about provincial privacy laws and the risk of a race to the bottom, and later asked Loewen about indigenous and historical riding names. Blaine Calkins (CPC) asked Chipeur about the voters list and ballot design, and later asked Conacher about fixed election dates and cash-for-access. Arielle Kayabaga (Lib.) asked Chipeur about the threshold for false statements and charter rights, and Gaumond about expanding the ad registry. Grant Jackson (CPC) asked Chipeur about judicial review for the commissioner and questioning election results, and later asked Tenove about enforcing laws on foreign platforms and Conacher about judicial review. Jessica Fancy (Lib.) asked Loewen about long ballot measures and cryptocurrency prohibitions. Anita Vandenbeld (Lib.) asked Tenove, Conacher, and Garnett about false information provisions, with Conacher arguing intent requirements make the law unenforceable and Garnett saying the bill strikes a good balance. Matt Jeneroux (Lib.) asked Tenove about false information, cryptocurrency prohibitions, and international enforcement powers. No procedural debate, motions, or votes were recorded in this meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.