THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 24, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met with this day at 9:01 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and to examine Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I would like to welcome all the senators as well as all Canadians tuning in on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan. I’m a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good morning. Éric Forest from the Gulf division of Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Good morning. Sandra Pupatello from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez from Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Clément Gignac from Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond, independent senator from Quebec.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner from Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec.
The Chair: Today, we’re continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025. With our second panel of witnesses, we plan to proceed with a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-4.
For our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome representatives from Alto. We’re joined by Martin Imbleau, President and Chief Executive Officer; Felix Turgeon, Chief Officer, Legal Affairs; and Marc-Olivier Ranger, Chief Officer, Strategic Policy and Partnerships. Welcome.
We’ll now hear Mr. Imbleau’s opening remarks. We’ll then proceed to a few questions.
Martin Imbleau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alto: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Above all, thank you for this opportunity to discuss Alto and the impact of Bill C-15.
[English]
Alto is a true high-speed rail service, the kind we see across Europe and Asia. It will link Toronto to Quebec City over nearly 1,000 kilometres of fully electrified, dedicated passenger tracks.
Fast, frequent and reliable, Alto will cut travel times in half and ease pressure on highways and airports and improve productivity in the corridor.
Last February, the government chose a high-speed rail option over a conventional alternative; selected Cadence, a consortium with strong Canadian roots and international expertise, as Alto’s private partner; and funded the development and pre‑construction phase.
In September, it committed to a four-year construction start target and designated the project as a transformative initiative for the country.
Recently, in December, Minister MacKinnon and I announced that its first phase will connect Ottawa to Montreal via Laval, with construction starting around 2029-30.
In 2025, we moved from an idea to a real project and from explaining the why to demonstrating the how.
Four weeks ago, Alto began a corridor-wide consultation process, including open houses, virtual sessions and roundtables. The level of engagement has far exceeded our expectations. To date, close to 6,000 people attended our open houses across the corridor; 100,000 people visited the online platform, and nearly 6,000 comments were left to us.
Later today, we will hold an open house in Mirabel.
[Translation]
Let me say a few words about the town and the region. In Mirabel, the past remains fresh in people’s minds. For a number of people, government intervention has left deep scars. The discussion isn’t starting today. It’s ongoing and it’s picking up again.
With this in mind, a public promoter’s credibility hinges first and foremost on its approach. It must arrive early, explain what has not yet been decided and listen before any choices are made. In this respect, the approach plays as important a role as the project. This is where social acceptability comes into the picture.
At the same time, consultations with Indigenous communities are continuing. The feedback gathered on a broad corridor will be used to determine a much more specific route. This route will be presented to the public again this fall. Meanwhile, the environmental studies required for the impact assessment are under way.
[English]
A project of this scale cannot move forward without a clear regulatory framework for Alto, but also for the industry, Indigenous partners and the public.
Predictability is the name of the game. The proposed measures are critical to deliver the project with certainty, on time and on budget. Without greater predictability, I will be back here in front of this committee in two years to explain delays and cost overruns.
But those measures come with responsibility. Anything affecting private property is deeply sensitive. “Expropriation” is a loaded word and not one to be taken lightly.
Our philosophy, whether in urban, suburban or rural areas, is respect, transparency and dialogue. Voluntary agreements will be the preferred approach. Legislative tools are nonetheless required to limit speculation and manage financial risk as development progresses.
[Translation]
For example, the right of first refusal seeks to prevent land speculation. Certain provisions prevent non-essential work from artificially inflating the value of land that may be required.
The bill also modifies certain expropriation measures. Alto may have to resort to them, but we aren’t there yet. In 2026, our priority remains consultation, field studies, route identification and the purchase of properties on the market, where appropriate. However, the tools must be identified now before we go any further.
[English]
I appreciate your attention. I welcome your questions, Mr. Chair.
Senator Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Imbleau, for being here today, and your officials also.
Can you start off by telling us about the cost estimate of $60 to $90 billion; where did that come from and who prepared it?
Mr. Imbleau: It is not a cost estimate. I don’t want to be picky, but to have a cost estimate, you need to have a proper level of engineering, which we still don’t have. I prefer to use the working assumption.
It’s an internal working assumption based on what we got from the three bidders but also our international estimate. You would appreciate it is a fairly wide range because we need more detailed engineering, and it starts with having an alignment, which we will only have next fall.
Senator Marshall: It has been in the media and also in the report of the Senate Transport Committee that it was an estimate. Was there a risk assessment? I know that it’s a broad range, but is there a 50% chance it is going to come in at that range, or a 90% chance? I’m just trying to get a handle on $60 to $90 billion; it sounds like a lot of money, but when you think of the magnitude of the project, it doesn’t seem like a lot. What’s the probability of it coming in within that time frame?
Mr. Imbleau: We call it in the jargon the class 5 estimate. It’s an order of magnitude at this point in time. I want to be prudent and pick an alignment. I cannot have an estimate if I don’t know what I’m building, where I’m building it, so the alignment this fall, then the engineering starting next year.
Hopefully, next time I come before this committee, we will have a better estimate than the working assumption.
Senator Marshall: I take it from what you’re saying there has been no cost-benefit analysis carried out. Is that correct?
Mr. Imbleau: Actually, we did a few economic analyses that my colleague Marc-Olivier Ranger can provide, both macro and micro.
Senator Marshall: Is that something that you could provide to the clerk of the committee so we could have a look at it?
I’m thinking about not only the cost but also the time frame. How much does a project like this typically cost because $60 to $90 billion sounds a bit on the low side? Is there a document that we can have access to?
Marc-Olivier Ranger, Chief Strategic Policy and Partnerships Officer, Alto: Thank you for your question, senator. We’ve worked on various benefits of the projects, and there are studies that have been done by third parties, like the C.D. Howe Institute. We do have estimates of the benefits that would be triggered by the project. We have published a very high-level general document on our website. Back to Martin Imbleau’s comments around the working assumption, we are planning on releasing a series of documents that will outline all of the benefits.
Senator Marshall: Based on what you’re saying, it sounds like you don’t have a handle on the costs and the benefits yet. Isn’t it possible when you do the cost-benefit analysis, it might show this project is not feasible?
Mr. Ranger: We have a fairly good handle on the benefits. Let me rephrase my answer. When we look at modelling and economic studies, there are three layers of benefits you’re looking at. Usually, you are looking at the direct benefits to the users. That’s what you’re referring to when you mention cost‑benefit analysis. We do have studies that cover that. In terms of the macroeconomic impact, we’re looking at modelling with Statistics Canada how many jobs will be created. We do have estimates around that. We’re also looking at, based on other G7 countries, what macroeconomic benefits are usually incurred with a high-speed train.
Senator Marshall: I think my time is up. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: In short, what economic documents can you provide to the committee?
Mr. Ranger: You can consult a document online. In addition, a series of documents will be submitted with specific projections.
The Chair: When?
Mr. Ranger: We’ll check with Mr. Imbleau and release it to the public shortly.
I would like to share with the committee that a sensitive issue arose at the end of our business relationship with the private developer. Not all studies are for public consumption. However, in our public consultations, we’re hearing that Canadians want to understand the benefits of the project. We’re committed to making this public in the not-too-distant future.
The Chair: We have the power to seal documents and place them under protection. That’s no problem. The information on the internet is good. However, we also want the private information. We have the capacity to protect it.
Senator Forest: Welcome.
There are sensitive documents, but the route also includes parts of sensitive areas. You spoke about Mirabel. As the saying goes, once bitten, twice shy. They don’t want to relive the Mirabel airport experience, meaning the percentage of land expropriated compared to the actual need.
In the case of your project, we must take into account the quality of farmland, which constitutes an extremely important asset for the country. How will you reassure the people of this region that we won’t be expropriating a much larger area than the amount really needed?
Mr. Imbleau: The little Saint-Hyacinthe boy in me always remembers the value of farmland. We know that every square metre is worth something. We’re keenly aware of this reality.
Our approach is based on best practices. I’ll talk about the human reality next.
First, we’re trying to follow along a piece of existing infrastructure, such as a highway or a power line. When we need to branch off to cut pieces of land, we try to follow the water’s edge, so the property lines, to avoid cutting into land. It’s only when we have no other option that we unfortunately need to cut a piece of land. For a high-speed train, when we choose one place, it affects dozens of kilometres to the east and west. We want to make the line as straight as possible. It isn’t just Mirabel. We’re looking at the whole route.
This involves the acquisition of 60 metres of property. This isn’t on the same scale as the requirements for Mirabel. I need 60 metres of right of way just for a few kilometres to install the two railway lines. This probably amounts to a few hundred properties. Our approach is to present options, to listen to individuals, to minimize the impact, to provide fair and reasonable compensation and to have compassionate people who appreciate the sensitive nature of this unique location.
Senator Forest: By way of comparison, Canadian National’s right of way is 30 metres. Are the proportions accurate?
Mr. Imbleau: It’s difficult to make a comparison with CN or CPKC. It depends on the number of tracks. In our case, it’s quite easy. We know that we’ll always need at least two tracks. In some cases, we’ll need a third. However, it will be two electrified tracks and an access road. All this will require 60 metres, no more than that. We’re trying to stay as straight as possible.
Senator Forest: In terms of the route that you plan to announce in the fall, it’s quite a challenge given the extent of the consultations under way. It seems that the route won’t connect with, for example, the airports or the tramway in Quebec City. The intermodal aspect of the infrastructure is quite an important condition and a guarantee of success. Am I reading this wrong? Will the route connect with the airports and the Quebec City tramway?
Mr. Imbleau: It’s vital to connect with the transportation services of the future, not of the past.
For example, I had the opportunity to tell Quebec City that we absolutely must connect with the tramway of the future, either in its initial phase or in a subsequent phase. This is crucial for Quebec City.
In Montreal, we need to connect with the REM. We currently have options that connect with the REM. We have an immediate connection with the airport and then with Laval.
In Ottawa, we need to connect properly with the current light rail network. We need to find a place where we can provide this service.
It’s the same thing everywhere. We can serve the airports with a level of separation. We don’t necessarily need to connect directly with the airport. However, Canadians must have the option of hopping on Alto to reach the airport or taking the REM. That’s our goal for integrated mobility.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I have three questions, and I’ll put them to you at the start. As a senator from Ottawa, I’m really quite excited about the prospect of the line coming through here because there have been other ideas where the line would go from Montreal to Toronto through Kingston, rather than Ottawa. I think Ottawa needs an economic boost, and having the line come through Ottawa is really important aside from it being the national capital.
My three questions are as follows.
First, for the station, from a perspective of high speed, it would seem to me that Tremblay Road makes more sense than coming downtown and kicking us out of our building, the Senate building, which, by the way, we’ll be out before you come, so you won’t have to kick us out. There have been thoughts about moving it there.
Second, say between Montreal and here, how much are you using the current lines? When we talk about expropriation or changing, it seems to me you’ve got a fairly straight line. How much of it is going to be new?
Third, in terms of employment and youth employment, we have a real crisis of youth employment in this country. When we have mega projects of this kind, I hope that you will have a part of your project to make sure you’re employing a lot of young people and training them in the various ways that would be necessary for building a project like this.
Mr. Imbleau: Allow me to start with that third one because it’s near and dear to my heart. This job will require 50,000 workers. A lot of them are in high school today. They are in Indigenous communities. We need the workers of tomorrow to be interested in developing, building and operating that line. We’re already reaching out to universities, colleges and training centres to ensure that we have the right workforce. One of the reasons we want Alto to be perceived as sexy is we want the youth of tomorrow to be interested in this project, so definitely, it is a key aspect of our workforce development.
On the station being in Ottawa, it’s interesting. We have options, and we will keep options open until the last minute just because of project sensitivity, but also consultation is not about sitting down to have a sales pitch. It’s really about listening and looking at different options. Tremblay is an option. This building is an option. I had the chance this morning to go through the tunnel under the other building and this one, thanks to the security agent, and this building has constraints that come with it for obvious reasons. We’ll keep options open, and in the fall we will be in a position to select what is more appropriate. It needs to be fast and economic.
Thirdly, most of the line will be greenfield, even between Montreal and Ottawa, because we need to go through Laval, and then we’re connecting to Ottawa coming from the North Shore. Most of it will be using new lines, at least — well, a big portion of it. Before talking about expropriation, our intent is to have willing seller-willing buyer agreements along the line.
Senator Cardozo: Why would you not use the current line?
Mr. Imbleau: We need to go to Laval. So, today, the intent and the best assumption are to come from Ottawa, Laval, and then downtown Montreal, and then going back to Laval and then to Quebec. So it is a Y-shape that is more efficient, less costly and connects the airport without coming through the west, because through the west is just not possible to do.
Senator Ross: First of all, thank you for coming here today. I appreciate you sharing your insights. When you met with the Transportation Committee earlier this month, one of the things you talked about was that the government committed to a four‑year construction period. You also said:
According to estimates, every year that goes by with no trains in service adds several billion dollars to the project’s cost. If construction can start in a four- to five-year time frame and finish on time, it minimizes the risk for Canadian taxpayers, because every year represents an additional cost of about $2 billion to $3 billion.
And you said, “That’s a powerful incentive.”
This morning you have said predictability is the name of the game. So my first question is about incentive. Is that a contractual incentive or an inflationary incentive? Second, if predictability or certainty is the name of the game, what is the start date? What is the route? What is the cost? And what is the length of longer time equals longer cost? I just feel that there is no certainty about any of these things at this point.
Mr. Imbleau: We’re talking about a network of 1,000 kilometres. We’re not talking about one single project. We’ll probably do it in three different phases, so three projects. The first one, Montreal to Ottawa, is not a small one. It’s 200 kilometres, three stations, but it allows us to use workers in both provinces, and it will allow us to learn and then deploy with more agility going east to west. We will start building this in 2029 with pre-work and 2030 with more significant work, and the first segment will probably take seven years. So in 2037 we’ll put that into service, but we will not wait to finish the first segment. Probably two years after starting the construction of the first segment, so Montreal to Ottawa, we will start building east to Trois-Rivières in Quebec and west to Peterborough and Toronto.
So I’m much more comfortable on the scope and timing and numbers around the first segment because this is the one we’re focusing on. If I were to throw very precise information on the rest, we haven’t done the analysis yet. We have lines we’re consulting, but being impatient, but doing things in baby steps is what makes the project certain. So 2029 is doable, and by 2030 we will be constructing this project.
Senator Ross: You talked about your incentive being the additional costs. Tell me what you mean by that.
Mr. Imbleau: Just inflation is more than $3 billion on the cost of this project, rule of thumb, based on the economic analysis that we have mentioned before.
Second, projects sometimes are scope driven or cost driven or calendar driven. This one is calendar driven because it should have been built 40 years ago, and Canadians are suspicious and skeptics about the ability for us to deliver this. That’s why we need to be very tight on the schedule, not promising things that we cannot deliver, but we haven’t had a single delay since we were created. I’m very proud of that, and we intend to respect that.
It’s going to be a challenge: 200 kilometres of new technology that’s never been built. It’s going to be a challenge, but that’s why we need to associate ourselves with the private sector. I do believe that the state only would be a challenge to do it alone, so the private sector being with us, I think we have good alignment to make it happen.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Welcome, Mr. Imbleau. I’m pleased to see you here today.
I would like to discuss one of the points raised by my colleague, Senator Cardozo, regarding the workforce. You explained how you would go about recruiting workers, particularly in Indigenous communities.
I know that the management report that you published contains a section on risk management. This section covers, for example, one of the risks associated with supply difficulties, particularly in terms of workers. I’m bringing this up because a number of witnesses who appeared here to discuss various topics spoke about labour recruitment challenges. I’ve never built a high‑speed train. However, presumably the project involves a fair amount of labour. With immigration policies coming into effect in the provinces concerned and across Canada, have you carried out a study of labour needs? How will you make sure that you have workers, as outlined on page 8 of your report regarding risk management?
Mr. Imbleau: Thank you, Senator Hébert.
A project of this nature is eminently civil. This means that we need local workers and businesses. This also helps to maximize the economic benefits. We need to make sure that the regions have what they need. After all, workers from Quebec City won’t be heading to work in Peterborough. I know. That won’t happen.
We won’t do this alone. We’re in talks with the Commission de la construction du Québec, with Metrolinx in Ontario and with Hydro-Québec. The three of us account for such large-scale projects over the next 20 years that we need a certain amount of coordination to avoid eating into our own resources. Discussions with our union partners will also begin shortly. We need to plan for the next 15 years. I’ll refer to the question asked earlier. We need to visit colleges and high schools to get people interested in these jobs.
We also need to think about techniques. I said this morning that the Montreal metro tunnel is starting today. Building a tunnel is more expensive, but it has three major advantages. You control your destiny, you have little or no social and environmental impact and you don’t need many people. In some places, the choice of a tunnel will prove important, specifically because it frees up workers to spend their time on other projects. That’s why, particularly in Montreal, we’re thinking of a tunnel. It will certainly be a challenge.
In terms of immigration, it’s a reality. We have European partners in the consortium. These partners are Keolis, SYSTRA and the SNCF. So far, we’ve benefited from international support and helpful French expertise. Even in my team, I have people from all over the world. We’ll be trying to get the right minds and talents around the table for the coming years.
Senator Hébert: I want to focus on the immigration issue, because it’s important. Studies have shown that, if the government wanted to carry out all the promised infrastructure projects, we would be short tens of thousands of workers in the infrastructure construction industry to build everything. Given the constraints and the demographic reality — as you said, it’s even worse in the regions — do you plan to bring this to the attention of the governments concerned? This will be a problem. It’s a reality.
Mr. Imbleau: In every forum used during my tour of chambers of commerce and communities, I’ve directly urged stakeholders to get ready. The object in the mirror is much closer than it appears. We need people starting in 2029-30, so we need to be prepared. I’ve even told companies: “Your regional competitors of the past are probably your regional partners of the future.” The goal is to have consortiums that provide a bit more structure and to award quite substantial contracts.
The project provides an exceptional benefit. We’re located in the southern part of the provinces. We have markets in Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, Laval and Ottawa. We’re in a good geographic position to maximize the use of our resources. That’s one of the project’s major benefits.
Senator Hébert: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you for joining us today to answer our questions.
I teach a course at Université Laval on the impact of climate change and the new approach to design and development. This course is for engineers.
Regarding your project, I’m quite concerned about who in Canada has the necessary expertise to ensure the structural resilience of the planned infrastructure along the St. Lawrence River and its estuary. We’re talking about tunnels, Mirabel and building for the future, not for the past.
How can we ensure structural resilience given the geography? We cross hundreds of waterways and wetlands. We know that flood patterns have changed and that the energy needs for these trains will change. I know that the European expertise is excellent, along with the Japanese and Chinese expertise. However, here in Canada, the climate is warming three times faster than in the rest of the world. I would like to know who in your department is looking into all these aspects.
Mr. Imbleau: Thank you for the question.
The challenge with any new infrastructure is to look ahead 100 years. We’re talking about building infrastructure that can withstand the Canadian seasons, from 35°C to -35°C, for the next 100 years. That’s unique.
I’ll start with the energy aspect. We aren’t really worried about availability. We’re in contact with Hydro-Québec, which provides green energy. In Ontario, it’s about the same, about 50 megawatts. In Canada, we mainly use renewable energy.
The challenges that you described motivate us to consult, to start with a corridor and then to introduce a route in a few months. In practice, every kilometre covered involves a compromise. Is there a waterway? Is there a wetland or a flood plain? We must make this choice for each kilometre and multiply it by 1,000 to determine the route with the lowest impact for the next 100 years. We’re gearing up for this massive task over the coming months.
We have international expertise in the consortium. You spoke about the French people who are with us, but we also have some Spanish people. I believe that an Alto delegation is currently visiting Korea and Japan specifically to discuss climate hazards.
When it comes to China, the topic isn’t always straightforward. China has exceptional expertise in high-speed rail construction. Through the international high-speed rail associations, we also have access to a pool of technical knowledge. This includes expertise that we plan to use to manage climate variability. It’s a real challenge and a constraint. For the next 100 years, we’ll need to lay out the route correctly.
Senator Galvez: I’ll ask you the question and you can provide a written response.
We need to plan for the redundancy of this infrastructure and the modular aspects, because a risk analysis must be carried out. Do we have this expertise in Canada? I know it exists in other places, but do we have this expertise here?
Senator Gignac: Welcome, Mr. Imbleau and your team. Congratulations on your approach. I think the consultations you’re doing are very important in terms of social acceptability.
The government has identified the high-speed rail as a nation‑building project. I’d like to shift the conversation in another direction.
The United Kingdom began building HS2, and that project ultimately fell through.
My question is twofold.
First, what is your comfort zone in terms of your cost range? In the United Kingdom, it was 300 kilometres at a cost of $100 billion. Here, you’re talking about 1,000 kilometres that will cost less than $100 billion. Am I comparing apples and oranges in terms of the way the land is configured?
The second part of my question is much more important. Are there lessons to be learned from what happened in the United Kingdom so that we aren’t still talking about the project in 15 years? Fifteen years ago, I was in the Charest government, which was pushing Ottawa to build a high-speed train. Now, 15 years later, we’re still talking about it. What happened in the U.K.? What lessons should we learn from them?
Mr. Imbleau: Thank you, senator.
In terms of the cost range, it’s very difficult to compare one region and one project with another. There was an article in the Financial Times two or three weeks ago that gave a rule of thumb of $100 million per kilometre. It’s easy to look at that and think we’re right on target. However, putting one hand in the fridge and the other in the oven doesn’t make it zero degrees. That’s why I’m very wary of that reality.
Once we have a route and the engineering, I’ll come back with a cost estimate, but it’s a very restrictive reality. It’s very difficult to build in Great Britain. It’s different from Quebec’s farmland.
We think HS2 is one of the projects to watch more closely, because it has all the ingredients for a disaster. There’s California, on the one hand, and HS2 on the other: Those are probably the two examples not to follow.
The California rail starts in the middle of nowhere and ends in the middle of nowhere, and there’s no funding to carry out the project. It’s a matter of doing bits at a time and then stopping. In the end, there are little bits and pieces, and nothing is connected; nothing moves; nothing happens.
With HS2, it’s the opposite. A mandate was given, and, through multiple interventions, the project’s route and configuration were changed, an additional station was requested, and the project was changed so much that interventionism led to a Frankenstein project. One day, the government woke up and realized that what it had planned to build three years earlier wasn’t at all what was being developed. Everyone had added their two cents; everyone had asked for an additional mandate. That distorted the project so badly that it was cancelled. The costs had become astronomical, and it became an issue of social and political tensions.
I prefer the boring approach of giving a mandate, submitting the implementation plan and letting the project go ahead. That’s the way to deliver projects that are difficult to carry out. If people keep adding configurations and aspects, it becomes more and more difficult to manage. That’s a very important lesson to learn from Great Britain.
Senator Dalphond: It’s always a pleasure to welcome the Alto team, formerly from VIA Rail, at least in part.
I’m very much in favour of this project, but there’s still opposition from people who are uninformed. You said earlier that there was a lot of interest. There’s no question about that. However, when I look at the information I receive on the actual costs, it’s not just the people of Mirabel who are writing to me. There are also people in the Peterborough corridor.
We’re talking about the county of Frontenac, which is protected by ecological regulations and at risk of being threatened. The people from the Department of Transport told us that they were going to follow highways and the least disruptive places possible. Apparently, that won’t be possible in the Ottawa-Peterborough corridor.
Can you elaborate on that? People are worried and saying that their property will be frozen for years and that they won’t be able to make any changes. They’re wondering when it will go from a wide parcel to a narrow parcel, and when they’ll know whether they’re inside the zone. In the Peterborough corridor, there are two routes. Could you be more specific about the dates to reassure people?
Mr. Imbleau: Thank you for your question.
The opposition doesn’t come just from people who are against the project; it can come from someone who is legitimately concerned because they don’t know where it could pass through. A project like this is an extraordinary benefit to society. However, it has a local impact that can be significant for a family. I have a great deal of respect for all the opposition and questions we receive. They’re going to increase in number.
We decided to start with a wide corridor, because a 60-metre parcel has local impacts that aren’t huge, except, obviously, for the people affected. However, the 60-metre strip has to be chosen carefully. If we had proposed the 60-metre strip this winter, people would have thrown tomatoes at us. In their eyes, we wouldn’t have been credible if we had chosen a route without consulting them.
It’s a little more reassuring to have a corridor. That makes it possible to identify the route with the least impact. Next fall, in great detail in the first segment, we’ll be able to determine each parcel that will be identified.
The idea isn’t at all to leave landowners in limbo for a long period of time, but to secure the land as soon as possible. Mr. Turgeon is responsible for that approach. We promise you that we will have a 60-metre strip to present in the fall.
Senator Dalphond: Another concern is about the buyback price. Since some expropriation procedures have been amended or suspended, there’s a fear of not receiving fair market value. Can we guarantee to those who bought an $800,000 property last year that they won’t get only $400,000 as a result of the expropriation?
Mr. Félix Turgeon, Chief Legal Officer, Legal Affairs and Corporate Secretariat, Alto: The Expropriation Act hasn’t been amended when it comes to calculating compensation. As Mr. Imbleau pointed out earlier, the objective is to reach mutual agreements with the owners. We’re very serious and sincere about this. In the event that we don’t reach an agreement based on market value, an expropriation process will begin. However, Bill C-15 doesn’t affect the act’s provision on the calculation of expropriation. That provision states that the calculation is based on the property’s market value. In addition, the costs incurred in the process will be reimbursed.
Senator Dalphond: That means the fair market value will be the criterion?
Mr. Turgeon: Absolutely.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
The Chair: You say that you will certainly try to reach an agreement with them, negotiate in good faith and reassure them. I hear you. However, the bill before us would remove the obligation to try to negotiate an agreement. Since you intend to negotiate, shouldn’t we remove this clause from Bill C-15?
Mr. Turgeon: In fact, this particular section is provided for private railway companies, such as CN or CPKC. However, the railway we’re building is a public service, unlike a private company.
The Chair: [Technical difficulties] expropriation.
Mr. Turgeon: In fact, the Expropriation Act provision that requires a railway company to try to reach an agreement is a bit of a peculiarity that applies only to expropriations made at the railway company’s request. Alto will become a railway company, but unlike other companies such as CN or CPKC, Alto is a public service. That means that the provision in Bill C-15 puts Alto in the same situation as any other Government of Canada expropriation for public service reasons.
Mr. Imbleau: Mr. Chair, once the route has been determined, the reality is that the rail has to go through there.
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt but I have other questions and I don’t want to lose my time.
[English]
Senator MacAdam: When Transport Canada was here at our committee, I mentioned that I was interested in the overall oversight of the project, and I just want to reiterate that here. I would like to know from you what the responsibilities of Alto would be versus Transport Canada as well as the Cadence consortium. How is that going to all work so that there will be adequate oversight of this project and reporting to the highest level of government and to Parliament?
Mr. Imbleau: Allow me to start with Cadence, and Mr. Ranger will cover the very structured governance and oversight we have with the agencies.
We are the project authority, so our role is actually to be fully dedicated to overseeing what Cadence is doing. We have the expertise on the law, land acquisition, technical engineering, cost assessment and everything, so our job when we wake up in the morning is to ensure that Cadence delivers on its mandate. We are the oversight and the authority based on the contract and other contracts that will be negotiated, but there are many other layers above that.
Mr. Ranger: In terms of the Government of Canada, the Minister of Transport is the minister responsible for the project in front of Parliament. Alto, as a Crown corporation, stood up as an independent. It’s under the Financial Administration Act, part 10. This is our enabling legislation, so we’re a parent and agent Crown. In terms of our governance structure, you have a board that oversees all of the activities of the corporations, which hires the CEO. The Department of Transport is the authority in terms of policy orientation, so they do fix, in collaboration with us, the project outcomes that we’re trying to achieve. When we stood up the corporation, Alto as a project office, it was stood up as an independent organization with full transparency. So in terms of an organization, we’re receiving appropriation from Parliament directly. There is full visibility and transparency in terms of the amount of money we’re receiving. It’s segregated from VIA Rail. Those are totally separate.
As a corporation from an accountability perspective, like all Crown corporations, we’re subject to disclosure of our corporate plans, annual reports, we release quarterly financial statements, all of the reporting requirements under the Privacy Act, and the Access to Information Act apply to us and many others.
The auditor of the corporation is also the OAG, just for your information. They’re part of our Audit Committee, and we’re going to be subject to a special examination after a period of eight years like any other Crown corporation.
As a corporation, Alto has been stood up as an independent project office.
With regard to the Department of Transport, they have a policy role with Alto. So what is the enabling legislation that is required? What should be the mandate of Alto? We’re advising the minister and ensuring that we’re delivering on the mandate that was awarded to us. When the Minister of Transport reports back to Parliament, he has the advice of both Alto and the departmental officials that are performing oversight and due diligence in terms of the work we’re conducting.
Senator MacAdam: I have another question with regard to costs. So you mentioned that the working assumption is that the costs of the project could range from $60 billion to $90 billion? I’m wondering is that just capital costs, or what about the operational costs? Is there a working assumption on annual operating costs for the project?
Mr. Imbleau: Those assumptions are capital costs, really the cost of building the project. Operating costs, it’s too early because the business model will be refined with Cadence, and their partner will come later in the development phase.
Senator MacAdam: Okay. Of the total project costs, call it a working assumption or whatever, do we have a working assumption of an estimate of the percentage of the costs that would be incurred by the Government of Canada versus the private sector? I know there are privacy concerns and you can’t talk details, but do you have any kind of an estimate on percentages.
Mr. Imbleau: The project is developed and owned by Canada. It’s a public service that is paid mainly by Canadians and remains on the books of Canada. We will have investment from the private sector, but the investment is really to align interests and to manage the risk of development.
The asset, per se, is really financed by Canada. Then the project generates enough revenue to be self-sufficient once in operation because we think we’ll have 25 million people from mid-century. So it will be self-sufficient, not requiring any more subsidies for the operation, even including the subsidy paid by today by VIA Rail. We will be profitable on the operation side enough to cover both costs. Those are the assumptions.
[Translation]
Senator Clement: I appreciated your comments about Mirabel and Saint-Hyacinthe.
I’m from Cornwall, Ontario, not Peterborough. You talked about consultations with communities. Communities in places like Cornwall that really aren’t part of the project need to be reassured and not further cut off from larger centres. What are you doing in this regard for these communities that may not receive the benefits of the project?
Mr. Imbleau: That’s a good question.
We focused more on the places where the route could go. Perhaps we could have put more emphasis on the fact that the current VIA Rail service will be maintained and that communities won’t be cut off, since there’s a commitment to that effect. These are two services that will operate in a parallel and integrated way. It will be more efficient for people from Cornwall who want to travel long distances to take VIA to Peterborough or somewhere else and then take Alto to travel even further. Perhaps we should explain it to them better and go out into the field. Thank you for the suggestion. We aren’t perfect. We’re taking all the recommendations into consideration as we move forward.
Senator Clement: Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Thank you for coming. I will share the frustration of my colleague Clément Gignac. The two of us were ministers in 2010 when we spent millions of dollars updating 16 reports that had been written at that time on high-speed rail because we intended to take that next step.
I’ll remind, too, that in 1982, the then mayor of Windsor, John Millson, held the first press conference on high-speed rail, then between Windsor and Quebec City. That’s the origin that many people around this table have on your project, so we want you to get on with it.
I also respect the difficulty of these big projects. I would suggest, especially in the area of expropriation, when we talk about this, the nervousness that follows. I would urge you to use the examples of when provincial and federal governments engaged in this recently with bringing the 401 highway from its origins all the way to the new bridge in Windsor. That was my riding.
It was part of my political career to have to go and knock on these doors and tell them we’re taking their homes. It was not easy. I was heartened by the process that the bureaucrats used. Local politicians engaged with those bureaucrats to ensure that it was done in a proper way to take care of these people. I feel confident that people were treated very fairly. I urge you to show these people — when you get to that point — this is the history that the government has on these types of things so that they have some level of assurance that it’s going to be done well for them. We took care of people all along that corridor with very few issues, I have to say, and it was a very big project, obviously.
I also want to add that you don’t start with the economic benefit of this project, and I wish that you did. Back in those days, Senator Gignac and I will recognize that we talked about why it was so necessary to move the workforce across this country as our economy grows to include massive technological and pharmaceutical hubs, places where executives have to zip back and forth; the expertise in science between Montreal and Toronto, those institutions; how a professor from Quebec can race over to Toronto, speak in the afternoon and be home for dinner. Those are key benefits that benefit the economy.
I think you have to update your GDP impacts of this project so people can see the cost. Yes, this is critical. These numbers are massive. But over the long term, which this project is, you have to show the overall benefit and the growth around the terminals that you’ll build. Because what it means when you are close to one of those terminals is an awesome opportunity for business and fantastic for individuals who have to travel very quickly and get home for supper. I think that has to be part of how you start this conversation every time.
I’ll cede any time that’s left for you to comment, thanks.
[Translation]
The Chair: I understand that that’s a comment. Maybe you can add to it. You have 45 seconds.
[English]
Mr. Imbleau: Senator, I will send you my speeches I make at committee because that is exactly how we start. I had four minutes of opening statements, and I could not cover that.
Twenty-five billion dollars of economic boost. The impact on the GDP is $25 billion, so it is 1.1% on the GDP with the project.
Thanks for the recommendation of the 401 highway. I’m not familiar enough, so we’ll look into that. And as Rick Mercer said, “Canada is the champion of high-speed rail reports.” This time we will try to make you proud and build it and not produce another report.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Imbleau, I have a few questions.
What bothers me a bit about the current process is that people’s rights are being taken away, and they don’t know it yet. Recourse for expropriation and rights to public hearing are being taken away. Indigenous knowledge is being made confidential, so people won’t have access to that information from Indigenous knowledge that could enable them to challenge or discuss the route. All recourse to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which is normally a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that can hear the parties and grant rights, is being removed. When you say that you want to treat people fairly, as a lawyer who specialized in public law and procedural fairness, I find that very shocking.
Why, in Bill C-15, do you want to remove recourse to an independent, impartial body that could hear the parties that are on the route, for example? Talk to me. We have known each other for a long time. You have an unparalleled talent as a communicator. People want a magic bullet. However, when it comes to the people who will be directly affected by the route, and when it comes to analyzing the Mirabel case, you say that you’re going to follow the end of the lots to avoid cutting into them. You said in the other place that it takes over 30 or 40 kilometres to deviate by a few degrees. It’s wishful thinking to say that you’ll follow the lots and that they won’t be subdivided or cut. You want to withdraw recourses. However, we’ll decide on that; we haven’t voted on that yet. Why do you want to take away recourses from those who will be expropriated in the future and who are unaware that they’re being expropriated, including the Canadian Transportation Agency?
Mr. Imbleau: I’m not going to take the government’s place. Mr. Chair, your observation is directed much more at the government. What we’re talking about is that objections are still in place, so these are amendments that ensure some transparency and clarity. Objection is still possible, and compensation issues are unaffected. Once the route has been determined, the reality is that a number of kilometres will have been chosen to the east and west where it could pass. To suggest that an objection could change the route is a bit unrealistic, precisely because of the realities of high-speed rail.
To start construction in 2029, if we had to go through the traditional Canadian Transportation Agency process, I guarantee you, Mr. Chair, that I would be back before you in 2029, and I wouldn’t have started anything. It’s a choice. What’s being planned and proposed is to know the procedure in advance, to have the opportunity for objection and fair and equitable treatment regarding compensation in a different time frame. The owners don’t know today, because we haven’t yet decided where the route could go. We’ll do so next fall. I promise you that as soon as I have my 60 metres, we’ll go sit down with the owners and tell them what the issues are. It’s different, but these aren’t shortcuts either.
The Chair: Bill C-15 will tie people’s hands. There will be a few ways to challenge this. We’re tying their hands and telling them to fight on equal footing with Alto, which is judge and jury on its route and the compensation to be paid.
Mr. Imbleau: Alto won’t be the one responsible for that process. Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC, will manage that aspect. We’re the authority that makes the recommendation on the route’s location. Afterward, it’s PSPC’s expropriation procedure that will take its course.
I’d like to come back to the topic of Indigenous knowledge. It was at the explicit request of a number of communities that were concerned about sharing their historical knowledge, particularly for environmental issues, but also for route choices and other reasons, that they asked us for this exception so that you could be given information that would remain confidential. We recommended that the government move in that direction for the sake of better co-operation. I’m sorry if that was misinterpreted. It’s at the communities’ request.
The Chair: Indigenous communities will have to be consulted, then.
I have many more questions, but we’ll move on to the second round. We’ll see you again anyway. You promised to come back in the fall.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: What you have outlined to us sounds like a Lamborghini. I would suggest you should have a plan B, which would be the Cadillac, where you would use the current lines.
My fear is that if the whole thing is going to be on new lines and expropriating new lands all along them, you have the prospect of this never happening. Between now and the time you finish building or even start building, there will be one or two government changes. It doesn’t take a lot for things to get out of control and for a new government to abandon the project. Indeed, my colleagues have pointed out that this has been discussed a number of times. My thought is to go for the convenient approach, which is to use, more or less, the current lines and do as minimum expropriation as you can. Both from a cost and a political perspective, it would be better. At least, look at that as plan B. That’s my plea.
Mr. Imbleau: Thanks for the comment, senator. Actually, we have looked at it. We spent 18 months looking at both options. Expanding the current corridor is simply not possible because it is so narrowly built that we would need to buy and expropriate way more land because it is so constricted everywhere. We would have a project that costs the same or more, and it would not be fast or reliable because we would still have to cross CN and CP lines. That’s why the government decided to go with the new approach. It’s tricky and difficult, but the other one is not doable. I would not recommend it. I’ve said publicly if we were to do that, someone else would have to do that job because I don’t think I can do it. It’s too difficult to build. Reliable with a good warranty is what we’re targeting, not a Cadillac or a Lamborghini. Let’s put it that way.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: You said that the participation of Indigenous communities is essential to success, and you’re right about that. Can you quickly update us on the status of negotiations with Indigenous communities?
Mr. Imbleau: Thank you for the question.
There are 40 communities directly or indirectly involved, with about 15 located much closer to the current route. We’ve been in contact with all of them for two years now. Several collaboration agreements are in place, and the consultation process is under way. We have to respect the government’s duty to consult. We are the ones doing that.
Above and beyond the obligation to consult, we want to maximize the economic benefits we’re trying to achieve with these communities. We’re very open to Indigenous communities’ financial participation in the project, with terms and conditions to be determined. To date, a number of communities see their involvement in the project as very good. We will certainly use First Nations knowledge, at the very least in the design of stations and whatnot. That in itself is a whole undertaking. Relationships are good for the most part.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I’ll just remind you that you promised to send the documentation and studies. Can you get that to us in 10 days?
Mr. Ranger: We’ll look into that.
The Chair: I know we haven’t talked about this much, but can you also provide the studies on prospective ridership? I read the study by Mr. Roy, a professor at HEC, and the one by McGill University. They seem to think that your assessment of the number of riders is overly optimistic, so I’d like to see your numbers.
Mr. Imbleau: We’ll get those to you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Honourable senators, we will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-4.
Please note that we have a Privy Council Office official at the table. Rachel Pereira, Director, Electoral and Senatorial Policy, Democratic Institutions, thank you for joining us.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points.
If at any point a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that at all times we all have the same understanding of where we are in the process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effects on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order. As chair I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is the ultimate master of its business within the bounds established by the Senate and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, obviously, provides unambiguous results.
Finally, senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above?
I know that Senator Moreau wants a brief preliminary word, but other than that, does anyone have any questions?
We can proceed.
Senator Moreau: Colleagues, I want to begin by thanking you for all your important work on this bill, and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for its review of Part 4 of the bill.
As you know, the Senate first considered Bill C-4 in Committee of the Whole on June 17 of last year when Minister Champagne appeared for 95 minutes.
Bill C-4 contains a number of very significant measures to address affordability for Canadians in times of economic pressure.
The U.S. President’s recent response to the United States Supreme Court ruling underscores the volatility of the economic situation. Canadians need these measures to be passed quickly.
Colleagues, during the Senate study, Part 4 received the most attention. Before we begin clause-by-clause consideration, I would like to comment on Part 4 of the bill, specifically.
Despite the privacy concerns raised, Part 4 stems from a court decision on the application of a provincial statute.
The important thing here is that the other place needed to reaffirm its powers, that is, reaffirm federal jurisdiction over federal elections to ensure that voters and the thousands of volunteers who work tirelessly in each riding during federal elections operate within the uniform federal framework.
As you know, all the major political parties, including the Bloc Québécois, supported this measure. Colleagues, we may not appreciate the way political parties are handling the issue of privacy, but it should be noted that Part 4 strengthens the existing regime, as noted by the Chief Electoral Officer, Stéphane Perrault.
No one’s denying that there is room for improvement. In fact, Cathy Hawara, Assistant Secretary to Cabinet, Democratic Institutions and Machinery of Government, at the Privy Council Office, said, “We’re constantly looking for ways to improve the privacy regime.”
Colleagues, while we have a duty as a chamber of sober second thought to review legislation, we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture: We come to Parliament without being elected. On some issues, we must defer to the elected chamber.
This is an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Senators are appointed, so many of our colleagues have never had to deal with the electoral process, but some have. An elected house has attributes that the Senate must, under all circumstances, consider with circumspection. In fact, we regularly discuss the nature of that dimension of the Senate’s role vis-à-vis the elected house.
[English]
For example, on April 27, 2023, opening on the Senate’s proper role regarding electoral legislation, Senator Tannas stated:
I believe the subject matter of this bill is not one that the Senate should be initiating. It deals with elections to the House of Commons, and we should reserve ourselves to sober second thought on matters that pertain to federal elections. It is, in my mind, disrespectful for the Senate to proactively seek changes to election processes for members of Parliament, but that’s my opinion.
On June 6, 2024, Senator Lankin responded to another senator:
Part of your speech focused on the elected chamber and its right to be dominant in consideration of issues around democracy and the democratic process.
I happen to agree with you that there should be deference to the House of Commons. That’s something I’ve said many times.
Similarly, on June 1, 2021, Senator Wells (Newfoundland and Labrador) expressed concern about a bill that would affect the conduct of elections and the makeup of the electorate. He stated:
There is a precedent for this. Bills that significantly impact the working of one chamber should be introduced and first debated in that chamber.
Finally, we should also keep in mind, according to the mandate of the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, the government intends to table privacy legislation in the near future. All the while respecting our limitations as senators, this may be an opportunity to further examine the problem and to respond to some of the concerns some senators have on privacy.
This concludes my remarks, and I thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
The Chair: I apologize, senators. I said Senator Moreau had a word to say, but I should have said he had quite a few. Thank you, Senator Moreau.
With your leave, we will begin clause-by-clause consideration. Based on my understanding of the way the committee operates, I would propose that we go part by part up to Part 4, and deal with Part 4 clause by clause to get at the details.
We also have our witness, who is available to answer our questions if necessary. I understand that this will be mainly for Part 4, obviously.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure?
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 four parts of the bill as described in the table of provisions when appropriate, and with the exception of Part 4?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Very good.
Part 1: Income Tax Act. Clause 2. Shall Part 1, entitled Income Tax Act, which contains clause 2, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 2: Amendments to the Excise Tax Act and related regulations. Clauses 3 to 13. Shall Part 2, entitled Amendments to the Excise Tax Act and Related Regulations, which contains clauses 3 to 13, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Part 3: Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations. Clauses 14 to 42. Shall Part 3, entitled Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations, which contains clauses 14 to 42, carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Carried.
Now I’ll move on to the other part, and I’m going to go clause by clause.
[English]
Senator Clement: Mr. Chair, I’m going to turn to you to make sure procedure is properly being followed.
I want to be able to make the case to ask my colleagues to vote against Part 4 in its entirety, so I would like to be able to do that now ahead of going through each section.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Clement: Thank you. Good morning, colleagues. I am happy to be in this space making this case. I’m a voting member today. I’m replacing Senator Kingston, and I also sit on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, where we considered this part.
I would like to respond right away to Senator Moreau’s comments. I take your point, sir, around deference to the elected place always. I respect that, and I appreciate that you alluded to that very clearly, Senator Moreau, but I would say this about the Senate’s role in talking about federal political parties. When we look at the House of Commons, there is a vested interest there for the federal political parties in this discussion. Having this conversation in the Senate, where many of us sit as independents, we have a role to play and an even stronger role to play when we’re talking about federal political parties.
I’ll start by saying that Bill C-4, Part 4, amends the Canada Elections Act to ensure that activities of federal political parties concerning the protection of personal information fall under federal jurisdiction. The backdrop that we have to consider is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA. That’s Canada’s federal private sector privacy law regulating how businesses handle personal information during commercial activity, and they have set out 10 standards that have been accepted in this country for many years around accountability, identifying purposes for the use of that data, consent, limiting collection, limiting use, disclosure, retention and accuracy. So that is 10 basic principles.
I’m just going to read a part of the LCJC report around that.
The committee agrees with witnesses that the privacy obligations of FPPs should be set out in a uniform national regime. However, the majority of committee members are concerned that Part 4 falls far short of the minimum standards required to protect the individual and national interests of Canadians, at a time when global experience indicates that these interests are increasingly at risk.
This concern is heightened by the inclusion of Part 4 in an affordability bill that is proceeding on an expedited basis and by the lack of scrutiny of Part 4 in the House of Commons. Most witnesses appearing before the committee identified numerous deficiencies, including gaps, anomalies, and ambiguities in Part 4 of Bill C-4. The committee finds itself in the frustrating position of attempting to conduct a thorough review of Part 4 without the time necessary to properly consider the many substantive amendments . . . .
The three recommendations made by the LCJC report were as follows:
That Part 4 of Bill C-4 be removed from the bill.
In the alternative, that Part 4 of Bill C-4 be severed from the other parts of the bill in order to allow for continued study of this Part while the remainder of the bill proceeds on an expedited basis.
In the alternative, that a sunset clause be included in Part 4 of Bill C-4 to cause the automatic repeal of this Part after two years . . . .
We saw and heard 18 witnesses total. Thirteen of them warned against Part 4 in its current form. Eight witnesses or brief submissions recommended the full deletion of Part 4, and I’m going to remind you that I’m making the case for us to vote against this part in its entirety.
I’ll go through some of the main arguments. The first is about provincial jurisdiction. We heard a number of times that there was a lack of consultation with provinces and a disregard for the work done by provinces and for the regimes and standards already existing in provinces. I’ll quote Mr. Woywada from the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association:
I would like to point to Bill 98 of Quebec that passed last spring and which has a fascinating new clause in it that allows deletion of records.
It creates a really interesting dynamic where it recognizes the conflict between political parties and the candidate in the collection of this information. They have some really progressive legislation from a Canadian perspective that I’ve been quite interested in seeing passed there.
At a provincial level, we see Quebec leading the charge on this because of their efforts to maintain data adequacy and more modern privacy legislation with GDPR, so because of those alignments, we see some important changes there.
This is just one example of a province doing some good work.
Mr. Hearn, who is a lawyer with the Centre for Digital Rights, said:
At the heart of Canada’s Constitution lies cooperative federalism: collaboration and coordination between federal and provincial governments. Part 4 violates that. In our view, it is the latest ham-fisted and arrogant kick at the can targeting provinces’ privacy powers, specifically the B.C. litigation. It is doomed to fail, it shares the same flaws as past efforts and the FPPs can’t sidestep Canada’s Constitution or the Charter by simply enacting a law that puts them beyond the legitimate jurisdictions of the provinces.
How data is gathered, used and stored was another issue raised by many of the witnesses at committee.
We heard from Philippe Dufresne, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, and he said:
. . . I recommend that Bill C-4 be amended to incorporate privacy standards that form the basic elements in data protection laws in Canada and around the world. These include requirements for political parties to identify the purposes for which personal information is being collected; to seek consent, as appropriate; to limit collection, use and disclosure; and to put into place appropriate safeguards to protect the personal information of Canadians from privacy breaches. The bill should also provide a mechanism for electors to access and correct their personal information that is held by political parties.
Michael Harvey, Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, said:
Among established data protection regimes, these rights commonly include a right to notice, a right of access, a right to rectification, a right to be forgotten and a right to withdraw consent to the use of personal information. These rights are absent from the proposed amendments . . . .
— in Part 4.
We also heard from Sara Bannerman, and she did some work surveying Canadians on the importance of privacy to them. She said:
My team’s work surveying Canadians raises the concern that failing to subject political parties to the 10 basic privacy principles may threaten confidence and engagement in elections.
For full disclosure here, folks, I have been a federal candidate a couple of times, and I have run, of course, in several municipal elections, so I come with that background. It motivates me to get on the record here around this issue.
Ms. Bannerman found that respondents were not aware of the range of data that parties collect, particularly political views, ethnicity, income, religion, online activities and IDs. She said, “. . . awareness of parties’ collections may reduce electors’ willingness to interact with political parties online.”
She went on to say that, “. . . increasing awareness of datafied campaigning goes hand in hand with growing concerns about collection.”
Finally, Ms. Bannerman went on to add that:
. . . very few respondents saw data collection as important to the democratic process. If collection is important to democracy, our respondents were not convinced.
Part 4 would not create a complete privacy regime; it would undermine provincial laws that do.
Jason Woywada, Executive Director, BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, went further here in talking about the potential of foreign interference by saying that it:
. . . does not require hackers overseas; it often relies on lawfully obtained domestic personal information accessed through intermediary domestic actors that can include Canadian political parties. In such cases, the data may be lawfully collected and election law may not be formally breached, yet the cumulative effect can still be the distortion of democratic choice, decision-making and the erosion of electoral sovereignty.
Elizabeth Denham, Former Information and Privacy Commissioner of the United Kingdom and British Columbia, spoke as an individual. She said:
In the U.K. and the EU, there are comprehensive data protection laws that extend across that whole political ecosystem, including political parties, and the last time we checked, democracy was alive and well.
Now, outside of Europe, New Zealand, South Korea, South Africa, Brazil and many other nations include political parties in their data protection and privacy laws. There is no exemption there for political parties.
Canada is an outlier when it comes to extending independent oversight for political parties’ use of personal data and breach notification and reports to an independent authority.
At committee, we also heard from Ms. Pereira about what happens when there is a privacy breach. It’s extremely important that our regulators have meaningful penalty powers to apply to companies that violate our privacy. This was said by Matthew Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, and he also said:
Currently, we’re in a system in Canada where, even when folks are found to be violating privacy, they will pay very negligible fines, a few million dollars, which for these companies is just the cost of doing business. If you get caught, you pay it and you move on. It’s not an incentive . . . .
When he raised that, I asked the question around what would the fines be in this case under Part 4, and the answer was if there is an infraction and it is deemed to be one, then they can issue a monetary penalty of a minimum of $50 or more, or $300 for an entity. We’re talking about tiny amounts of penalties if there is a breach.
I want to end on the concept of trust. We heard a lot about trust from witnesses. I’m going to go back to Elizabeth Denham, former Information and Privacy Commissioner of the United Kingdom and British Columbia. She said:
Oversight of Canada’s political parties is even more important today, given the government’s desire to strengthen and preserve democratic institutions and preserve trust and confidence in elections. Canadians will look askance at cynical efforts to take away their rights at a time when geopolitical unrest has turbocharged the risk of foreign influence and cyber attacks and when hostile states are interfering with elections by deliberately targeting personal information repositories.
Jason Woywada, Executive Director, BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, said:
I want to go back to that element of trust in that this is going to erode Canadians’ trust in the political process. Every time we look at these things, there is an intersection of trust through transparency, and people need to be able to believe in democracy in order for it to function. You look at every group that measures trust in public institutions and can see that eroding . . . .
Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada, said:
. . . I believe that better safeguarding of personal information would contribute to enhancing trust in the political process, writ large. Hopefully, we shouldn’t wait until we have a Cambridge Analytica scandal, or a major issue before protections are put in place.
He also said that privacy matters to Canadians. Their office conducted a survey last year and found that 9 out of 10 Canadians are concerned about the protection of their privacy. The survey also found that trust is how personal information is handled is becoming an important factor in individuals’ interactions with organizations. As I have consistently said, privacy is a fundamental right. Privacy supports the public interest, and it enhances Canadians’ trust in their public institutions.
I’m going to end with a quote from Tamir Israel, who was a witness on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who said:
People in Canada do not want a lawless approach to their personal data and expect Parliament to put in place reasonable rules for how political parties collect, use and disclose personal information.
We recommend deleting Part 4 from this legislative proposal and instead recommend applying Canada’s personal privacy framework PIPEDA to federal political parties.
I’ll end there, making the case for us to vote against Part 4. I believe that this whole issue deserves its own standalone consideration, and that’s why I’m making this case today and getting on the record. Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: I would like to weigh in on this issue. You may not be surprised my comments may be somewhat contrary to Senator Clement’s.
It was indeed an informative nine hours of testimony. The case that I would like to make that Part 4 is about jurisdiction. It’s not about policy. So much of the testimony that we received, a disproportionate amount, was focused on policy.
As Senator Moreau indicated in his comments, I’m not here to contend that the system is perfect by any manner and that improvements can be and should be pursued, but I don’t think this is the piece that provides that opportunity. I think there will be opportunities coming forward.
I think jurisdiction is the big piece, that federal political parties would find an incredible challenge in having to deal with a patchwork of provincial rules and regulations. If we take a different look at finances and how each province deals with political financing, it’s completely different across the country. In Quebec, the maximum you can donate is a hundred dollars to a political party. Most others have limits around funding from corporations and unions. It’s pretty much all private donations. In Alberta, we see that they’re lifting all those restrictions and allowing corporations to donate again.
Federally, we have one set of rules that govern all federal financing for federal parties. We should apply that to privacy as well. We should apply that.
The contention through the testimony: there was a picture that was tried to be painted that is the Wild West, and you can do anything you want. Know that the federal parties all have their own policies, published policies, on their websites about their rules around privacy. In response to outstanding questions by my colleague, Senator Dalphond, who pushed them on the various aspects of privacy, the right to correct, the duty to report in case of breach, undertaking not to sell or share information, and he went down the list, and each and every one of the parties that were being represented ticked each one of those. They comply with that. That’s their practice, and that’s printed on their website.
The point was also made that political parties are not businesses, and if anyone around the table of table ever walked into the midst of a federal campaign or a federal campaign office, they can attest to the fact that you could never run a business like that. They’re different beasts, where we hope that people who care about their communities, who care about a particular issue, who trust a person to represent them at the federal level, these people come together as volunteers and give of themselves for something that they believe in. Anyone who has been around can speak to and attest to that.
It has become tougher and tougher to have people step up within that realm and offer themselves up. Any of the parties in any of the electoral districts, on the financial side, you need a certified chartered account at that particular time to run the books during your election. Everything has to be just so. Every time they issue a statement, it’s their reputation that’s on the line. We do that basically with volunteers here in Canada. It’s not like the U.S. system.
If we want to put those types of demands, province by province, on volunteers, we’re asking them to go to greater lengths.
Those who testified and spoke in support of Part 4 believe, to a person, that there should be a single, comprehensive, exclusive, uniform, national regime. They understand, and they support that. But this is not that. This is about jurisdiction. This goes back 25 years to bring clarification to a piece of legislation that was passed 25 years ago, and that’s all that this is.
With that in mind, I ask my colleagues to make sure that Part 4 remains in this bill. Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I was a member of the committee that studied Part 4, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and it is very clear to me, and it was very clear to all of us, that Part 4 confirms Parliament’s intention to establish a privacy protection regime for federal political parties in 2000. That was their wish. They assumed that they had created that jurisdiction, or affirmed it in legislation, in May 2000. It was never intended that provincial privacy laws would apply. That was clear.
This is important because the rush around this, initially, was that there was a case in the B.C. Superior Court going on, in which B.C. was attempting to assert jurisdiction on the basis that there is no federal political party privacy regime. So this is meant to backdate what was asserted by the federal government and the political parties, that this was always intended to be federal jurisdiction.
We all understood that. That took about an hour to explain, and we understood it.
We can’t have patchwork provincial jurisdiction coming into the federal election process or the governance of federal political parties. This point was the only point that was made by the lawyers from the political parties that came before us. We appreciated that they came, but they reschooled us on the fact that this had to happen and why it had to happen.
This regime that is being created clearly exempts federal political parties from federal privacy legislation and provincial privacy legislation. They will be exempt from privacy legislation that every other organization in this country — businesses, volunteers, churches — must follow. It doesn’t matter who. Everyone except federal political parties will have to follow a privacy law, but the law for federal political parties is an empty box that says that every party must have a privacy policy. That’s the law. There is no oversight. There is no standard on what the privacy items need to be.
We all pointed to their existing privacy policies. There is the right of correction, but there isn’t the right of obtaining the information on which you can correct. You have to guess what they know about you and tell them that they might be wrong. How silly is this?
Jim Balsillie, a billionaire and genius who is well known in Canada, called it gaslighting to say that this is somehow an acceptable situation.
What were we left with? Two officers of Parliament asked to come before the committee and tell us their concerns about this. They were not invited to the House of Commons committee. Do you know how much time the House of Commons spent on this? This Part 4 was discussed for less than 20 seconds.
We, in the Senate, have a problem, and that’s why I believe this issue needs to be addressed in the Senate, not at this committee. The problem is that we have been given something on the hope that we will wave it through and hold our noses.
If Canadians expect anything from us, they expect sober second thought. There is just no way in my mind that the Senate can pass this without expressing the concerns and thoughts that we have.
I’m 100% in support of the first three parts, and I am in support of the premise that Part 4 needs to go forward in order to insulate all the federal political parties from provincial action, which is now looming. But it needs to be improved, and we heard some big promises that there would be more things coming, and it would all get better.
When we sat down and asked what we were going to recommend, there were a number of options. We could recommend waving it through. We held a vote on it that was roundly defeated as anything that a Senate committee — especially the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee — felt comfortable doing. We could talk about deleting it to show that this is not acceptable; go back to the drawing board. We could try to fix it, and we spent some time trying to ask, “Well, what could we put in? What wording?” It took a really long time, and we were trying to build a plane while we were flying it. It made no sense, so we discarded our attempts to fix it.
There was a proposal to take Part 4, as we have a right to do, although it is very rarely used, severe the bill and do more work on it, but get the other three important elements passed. We presented that as an option.
The final option we presented was that we could take notice of the need to now protect federal political parties from incursions by provincial regulators, that we allow this bill to go through with this, but that we insert a sunset clause that will force a future government within two years or some period of time, to actually fill that empty box with real meaningful privacy pieces, or face having to go back and open themselves up to provincial legislation.
We put those out as observations. This is a Senate issue. The fact that we’ve been allowed to wave this through made almost everyone on the committee uncomfortable, but it’s also something that we have been seized with. It is stuck in the back with nothing to see here of a bill that is all about taxation and government largess to citizens.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Tannas, I don’t want to limit anyone’s right to speak, but I want to point out that it is 10:49. We have 11 minutes left. If it is not adopted, it will be deemed adopted when it is tabled. I will give the floor to Senator Moreau, Senator Dalphond and Senator Ross, and then, unless there is something very special, I suggest that we proceed to a vote on the provisions.
Senator Moreau: I won’t repeat the opening remarks. I will try to respond to some of the points that Senator Clement touched on.
Senator Clement’s intervention demonstrates that Canadians’ interest in privacy extends far beyond issues related to the Canada Elections Act, but we must focus on the bill as it is before us.
I was the minister responsible for access to information and privacy in Quebec. Quebec prides itself on being the most advanced province in terms of privacy protection. The Government of Quebec did not deconstruct its legislation into multiple provisions in different laws. It put everything in a single law that applies to all privacy-related situations.
Bill C-4 is not legislation to protect privacy in Canada. It’s a provision aimed at relieving provinces of jurisdiction over electoral law in Canada so we don’t end up with a patchwork system. The goal is to have a uniform regime. It’s as if Quebec were to say: “In electoral matters, instead of the blanket law that applies to all Quebecers, we will adopt Ontario’s privacy provisions for Quebec elections.” We can’t criticize the federal government for wanting to standardize the protection regime. Right now, there isn’t one.
What Bill C-4 proposes is not perfect, but it is an improvement over no regime at all. So, if Part 4 is removed from Bill C-4, that leaves a gaping hole rather than a formula that can be improved upon in a general act. Part 4 should not be seen as a blanket privacy protection regime, but as a temporary regime political parties can use.
I want to comment on one thing. You can’t compare a political party to a private company. Political parties emerge like mushrooms, spontaneously, during elections. In our own electoral districts, once the law ends, you have one or two volunteers left to ensure party continuity. This is a totally unique system based essentially on volunteers who show up to support a political cause. There is nothing like it in society, not in the private sector or the public sector. Bill C-4 takes this unique characteristic of political parties into account. Don’t try to see it as a blanket regime.
When I read the testimony, I’m not surprised that everyone who tried to see Bill C-4 as a blanket privacy regime was disappointed. To conclude, I’ll reiterate that this is not a blanket regime issue, but a jurisdictional issue related to the fact that federal elections must be governed by an act that applies uniformly across Canada.
Senator Hébert: Senator Moreau, I understand your argument about the general scope as opposed to the jurisdictional or specific scope of the act. Why did the legislator choose this vehicle rather than another vehicle with a general purpose that could have included a section? I’m sorry, but I’m new here. I don’t want to slow down the committee’s work, but —
Senator Moreau: I don’t think you were in the Senate yet when Minister Champagne came to testify in Committee of the Whole. He explained why this measure is in Bill C-4. It was the first legislative vehicle that could apply and contain a measure that would essentially apply immediately.
The Chair: That’s how it was explained to me as well.
Senator Dalphond: A number of things have been said in a lot of time, and there is little time left. I would simply say that this debate deserves to be held in the Senate, not by our committee, especially since we didn’t hear from the witnesses. I was at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs meeting during the six hours of testimony that were heard. They were really good witnesses. The briefs were well prepared. The committee produced an excellent report with three options. One was rejected, the one that would have passed the bill as is, which our colleague Senator Cuzner had put forward. This does not preclude the House from doing that.
I think they should debate, because a number of things were said. I tend to agree with Senator Tannas. I think the Senate should take this up, and we should limit ourselves in our report to saying that Part 4 is carried, perhaps on division, because I’m definitely not in favour of the way it’s written. I understand that some would rather it be removed altogether. So, we could say that Part 4 is carried on division, and our report should invite our colleagues to read the enclosed report on Part 4 of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, for example.
The Chair: I’ll go to Senator Ross, and then we’ll see if we have consensus on that.
[English]
Senator Ross: I do understand that the intent is to bring this under federal jurisdiction and a uniform regime, but there isn’t one.
I am interested in Senator Cuzner’s characterization of the provincial patchwork as the Wild West. I submit that having no federal policy and asking organizations that, as you say, could not run a business, asking them to self-regulate, sounds like the Wild West to me. There is no standard or oversight, as mentioned by Senator Tannas.
When PIPEDA came into effect in 2000, I was an advocate for business. Businesses came onboard and figured out ways to adhere to these policies, and I think they have done a very good job. How can we expect businesses, not-for-profits and other organizations, to follow those 10 basic rules of PIPEDA and not expect political parties to be able to follow them as well?
If this was so important, why is it only being dealt with now and, once again, being tacked on to a non-related bill, which, as we know from Senator Tannas’ motion, is something that this committee finds very difficult to deal with?
If privacy legislation is coming in the near future, could this not be dealt with at that time? What does the “near future” mean? What is our schedule going forward?
We have not heard any specific timeline for that legislation. I’m very concerned about Part 4 being included in this bill. I agree with Senator Tannas that the other three parts of the bill are very important for Canadians. It makes it very difficult for us as senators.
I think it is interesting, and I’ve been told this many times by many members of Parliament, that they consider that we need to follow the guidance of those who are elected.
But I know when I took my call from Prime Minister Trudeau, he told me that I should do what I thought was best for my province, region and Canada, and for under-represented groups. I think, in this instance, this is not what is best. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: I got a sense from the body language of committee members that they approve of the approach suggested by Senator Dalphond to say Part 4 is carried on division. We will vote on each clause.
[English]
Senator Cuzner: To correct the characterization by Senator Ross, it was the federal parties that were being painted as the Wild West because they had nothing. But, in fact, they do have their policies. They have privacy policies that are clearly stated. If you go to their website, you can see those stated, and as challenged by Senators Dalphond and Dasko, they went down those lists, and many of the 10 points from PIPEDA were already identified within their policies.
The Chair: Shall clause 43 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 44 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 45 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 46 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 47 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Shall clause 48 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
[Translation]
The Chair: Shall clause 49 carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall clause 50 carry? It was a new clause.
Senator Dalphond, are you going to move it in the House?
Senator Dalphond: I withdraw the motion. I will do it in the other place.
The Chair: Perfect, thank you.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending annotations to the report? I understand that there are already some in the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Do you want to add anything else, knowing that it has to be tabled in a few hours? We have a logistical issue in terms of observations.
Senator Moreau: I have an observation that I would like considered. I think it will be distributed, so I will read it.
Notwithstanding the privacy issues raised by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs’ review of Part 4 of Bill C-4, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance recognizes that Canadian political parties are making incremental improvements to their privacy regime. In addition, the committee recognizes that the Senate has a tradition in electoral matters of deferring to the will of the elected house of Parliament.
The Chair: I think that’s a point of debate.
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: There doesn’t seem to be a consensus on this. We can go to a vote if you want, Senator Moreau, but I think we’re going to need more than two minutes to look at this. Are there any other suggestions?
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I haven’t had enough time to think about this, but I think that the report that is being filed by LCJC, the committee that looked at this in detail, stands as an observation, and that’s what’s going to be discussed. We have this awkward situation where one committee had the hearings in detail but don’t get a say in the clause by clause. I think by having passed what we did, part of it on division, their report standing as their observation, the observation is there, but, as others have outlined, I think we will have a good debate in the chamber.
[Translation]
The Chair: I think we have a consensus.
Senator Forest: Can we include the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs?
The Chair: It has already been tabled in the House. We can add it as an appendix to make it easier for people to consult it externally, but we know it’s already in the Senate.
Senator Forest: That would confirm the decision we made.
The Chair: I don’t feel that there’s a consensus to support the conclusions or observations of the legal affairs committee either, so it can be appended for reference purposes instead.
Therefore, no observations.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the report to be appended in both official languages, taking into account this day’s discussions on grammar?
[English]
Senator Ross: I had another observation that I believe was provided.
So I had two observations. I believe we have just said we were going to add LCJC’s report as an observation, so that’s great. My second one, and I will just read this as an observation.
As repeatedly stressed in previous reports, this committee would like to express its concern about the inclusion of unrelated non-financial matters in bills focused on financial matters such as tax changes and affordability that prevents parliamentarians and Canadians from giving these matters the thorough scrutiny they deserve. This frustration is shared by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, as detailed in their report on part 4 of Bill C-4 to the Senate.
Senator Clement: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Chair: We can put it in, but I just want to remind you that we’ll be reviewing the draft report on Senator Tannas’s motion this Wednesday. I don’t want to get into the details of the report because it’s confidential, but the report will follow up on what you want. So a committee report will be tabled in the next few days.
[English]
Senator Ross: If I could address that, though, chair. That is not going to happen until after we finish this report, and so it’s not part of this report. My concern with not having this observation included is that this is a standalone piece, so I think it’s really important to include it.
[Translation]
The Chair: Is it agreed, senators, to include it?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That gives us a taste of the Senate report that is coming to the committee. Perfect, we’ll include it.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Perfect.
That brings us to the end of the meeting. Thank you very much to our witness. Your presence alone was sufficient.
Rachel Pereira, Director, Electoral and Senatorial Policy, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We’ll meet again on Wednesday at 6:45 p.m. to continue our work.
(The committee adjourned.)