Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Bill
Second Reading--Debate Adjourned
February 4, 2026
Moved second reading of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.
He said: Honourable senators, I feel privileged today to speak on Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act.
However, before I commence my formal remarks, I hope senators will allow me a brief moment to reflect on a very important event that occurred yesterday. In light of what is transpiring in politics south of the border, it has even greater significance here in Canada today. Many were in attendance yesterday and also watched online. At the risk of sounding effusive about yesterday’s event, it truly showed Canada at its best. Of course, the event I am speaking about is the honouring of our twenty-second prime minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, at the unveiling of his official portrait.
I see Senator Housakos clasping his chest.
I was struck by the class, dignity, mutual respect and even the sense of humour displayed by folks who come from different political perspectives and who yet were unified, not only in honouring Mr. Harper but in honouring our country.
It was clear from both Mr. Harper and the current Prime Minister during their speeches yesterday, the importance during these difficult times, as we confront unprecedented challenges internationally — and, yes, even domestically — of setting aside our differences and squabbles and focusing on what we all agree on: That is that we live in one of the greatest countries in the world and that our unity rises above partisanship.
That is what we saw yesterday: a former prime minister, a Conservative, being honoured by a current prime minister, a Liberal, both expressing a deep sense of respect for each other, rooted in a love of the country, highlighting that we all have more in common than we think.
Yesterday was a special moment in our history in which those present understood that, during these difficult and challenging times, setting aside our differences for unity can be a source of inspiration for all of us and for Canadians across this country.
Thank you for your grace in allowing me to say these words. Hopefully, yesterday’s ceremony frames the essence of Bill C-4. Because it is about the kindness, understanding and generosity that Canadians show for each other and for our common good.
Honourable senators, as you know, Bill C-4 was one of the first pieces of legislation advanced by the new government, and, as the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for entrusting me with the responsibility of advancing this important piece of legislation designed to make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is my honour to do so, as I believe the tax relief contained in this bill is the right action for the government to take at this time.
I appreciate the opportunity to explore in more detail the key elements of the bill that I hope make it worthy of your support, colleagues.
In terms of the stated goal of this bill, which is reflected in its title, it would first legislate the delivery of the government’s middle-class tax cut, which is targeted at providing tax relief to nearly 22 million Canadians, saving two-income families up to $840 a year.
Second, it would provide for the elimination of the Goods and Services Tax, or GST, for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued at up to $1 million, which would save them up to $50,000 on that purchase. It would also lower the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.
Third, it would legislate the removal of the consumer carbon price following its cancellation, which was effective on April 1, 2025.
Finally, following extensive consultations among all the parties in the House, the bill contains some technical provisions to better clarify the framework for activities of federal political parties relating to personal information.
Let me address how this bill will achieve its core intent of making life more affordable.
In terms of implementing the government’s proposed middle‑class tax cut, it would reduce from 15% to 14% the tax rate applied to the lowest income tax bracket — the tax rate that is applied on up to $57,375 of an individual’s taxable income — which would be effective as of July 1, 2025. In effect, virtually everyone who owes tax will benefit from this tax rate reduction.
Moreover, the Department of Finance Canada estimates that the bulk of total tax relief will go to those with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets, which is to say those earning under $114,750, with nearly half of the total value of the tax relief going to those in the lowest bracket. That means it would be going to those hard-working Canadians who need financial relief the most at this time. What’s more, they would start receiving this financial support in a timely manner.
We know that hard-working Canadians are continuing to feel the impacts of ongoing challenges, including trade and tariff uncertainties and global inflation.
With the announcement of the government’s middle-class tax cut, however, the Canada Revenue Agency updated its source deduction tables for the period of July to December 2025 so that employers and pay administrators have been able to reduce tax withholdings as of July 1, so many Canadians have already begun benefitting from this lower tax rate.
But this brings me to a point of clarification about the implementation of this tax reduction that honourable senators should be aware of. Because the tax cut is coming into effect halfway through 2025, the aggregate benefits of the cut will not be as high this year as they will be next year and subsequent years. That is because, as we know, income is reported and tax is calculated on an annual basis. As a result of the one-percentage-point cut in the lowest tax rate coming into effect halfway through the year, the full-year tax rate for 2025 would be 14.5%, while the full rate in 2026 and future years would be 14%.
This means that, in aggregate dollar terms, the middle-class tax cut is expected to provide $2.6 billion in tax relief to Canadians in 2025, but that this would jump to $5.4 billion in 2026, which would be the first full year at the 14% tax rate.
Going further forward, this middle-class tax cut is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over five years starting in 2025-26. That represents significant support for Canadians facing broad challenges of affordability. The bill, however, also addresses an area where affordability challenges are particularly acute.
Canada is facing a steep housing supply gap, one that threatens affordability, opportunity and the ability for Canadians to build a life and future here at home.
Desjardins Economic Studies published earlier this year a report concluding that:
Over the past quarter century, the average selling price of a home in Canada has ballooned by more than four times, while the average household disposable income has only slightly more than doubled. Benchmark home prices now consistently exceed what the average household can afford in several provinces.
This is just one study among many reaching similar conclusions.
So it is clear that the current state of housing markets in Canada presents a serious affordability challenge for many Canadian home buyers, particularly those who are just starting out in life and are in the market for their first home.
I think we can all appreciate that this is not just a serious challenge, but a complex and multifaceted one involving issues of both housing supply and demand, with both sides of the equation being influenced by a range of other complex factors.
The government recognizes these issues. More significantly, it recognizes that a multifaceted problem requires and demands multifaceted solutions.
The government has, for example, in recent years announced a range of measures aimed at both increasing the supply of housing and helping Canadians make that first down payment on a home.
Bill C-4 is important because it would complement the range of existing supports the government is providing Canadians to make their first payment on a home. Specifically, it would do so by eliminating the GST for first-time home buyers on purchases of new homes valued at up to $1 million. This new first-time home buyers’ GST rebate would mean upfront savings of up to $50,000 on the purchase of their first home.
The rebate would also lower the GST on homes between $1 million and $1.5 million for first-time buyers. In short, the rebate would be phased out in a linear manner for new homes valued between $1 million to $1.5 million. So, for example, under the linear phase-out, a new home valued at $1.25 million would be eligible for a rebate of 50% of the maximum first-time home buyers’ GST rebate of $50,000, which means they would still save $25,000.
Based on these support parameters, the Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded that the new first-time home buyers’ GST rebate included in Bill C-4 would provide an average savings of around $27,000 to first-time home buyers on their purchase of a new home.
So, by supporting Bill C-4, senators — which, I might add, was amended in the other place at the committee stage to move the coming-into-force date ahead — we would be providing a significant increase to the already substantial federal tax support available to first-time home buyers through programs like the First Home Savings Account, the RRSP Home Buyers’ Plan and the First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit.
As honourable senators are aware, a home is the largest and most important purchase most people will ever make, and it is more than just a financial investment: It’s a major first step for Canadians setting out to build a family, an investment in their future, an investment in peace and comfort as they work to build a life for themselves and their families and an investment in their retirement.
So by supporting Bill C-4, we would be allowing more young people and families to achieve their dream of home ownership and begin investing in their futures, their families, their peace and comfort and their retirements.
Governments across the country have committed to building more housing. Federal, provincial and municipal governments are coming together to address this problem. The measurements in this bill do not stand alone; there is a wider effort to build homes at a federal level. Build Canada Homes is playing an important role in helping as well, recently announcing that six locations across the country have been chosen to team up with provinces and municipalities to create new homes for Canadians.
Just before the break, the City of Ottawa and the federal government stated they have come to an agreement to accelerate the construction of 3,000 homes in this city. The Prime Minister said at the time the plan is to “. . . deploy financing to help unlock an additional 1,000 housing units in the City’s portfolio.”
He also said:
Under this agreement, the City will reduce or waive development charges, permit fees, and property taxes on priority projects for 2,000 new housing units.
In my home province of Nova Scotia, they have struck a deal with the federal government to address housing shortages as well, as announced on December 14 of last year. This agreement would see the construction of 1,430 homes in Nova Scotia.
In Longueuil, Quebec, Build Canada Homes has announced an agreement to build 1,055 new homes; 40% of these will be non‑market housing units.
There was also a deal struck to build on federal lands in Toronto, which will see 540 homes built; 40% will be affordable. Edmonton has been earmarked for the construction of 355 new homes. In Winnipeg, a project has been struck with Treaty 1 First Nations to build 320 new homes.
Projects are moving forward across the country. There is obviously much more to be done to move the needle forward, but in a very short period of time, the government has signalled that building homes for Canadians is a priority.
This brings me to the third component in Bill C-4, which is also a third good reason to lend your support for this piece of legislation.
As we know, one of the first things the Prime Minister did upon assuming his responsibilities was to cease the application of the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1 of last year. However, while this was effectively accomplished through government regulations, Bill C-4 would take the next step beyond the regulatory ceasing of the fuel charge by completely removing the federal consumer carbon price from Canadian law.
In making this change, the government has committed to refocusing federal carbon pollution pricing standards on ensuring that carbon pricing systems are in place across Canada on a broad range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry.
The government has been clear that a price on pollution for large emitters would continue to be a key component of its plan to build a strong economy and a greener future, and it has been clear in committing to a system that is fair and effective.
Industrial carbon pricing is one of the most important greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies in the government’s plan to meet Canada’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. Carbon pricing systems for industry are also designed to keep costs low to protect against competitiveness risks, while driving investment in the technologies that will shape the clean economies of the future and create good jobs.
Bill C-4 is therefore an important step in setting the government on this path to a cleaner, sustainable and more prosperous future. However, as I noted at the outset, even though affordability is Bill C-4’s primary focus, it is not its full extent.
The bill also includes some technical provisions to clarify Parliament’s long-established intent that the activities of federal political parties relating to personal information fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction and the Canada Elections Act.
For one thing, this would clarify that federal political parties cannot be required to comply with provincial personal information protection laws, in keeping with Parliament’s intent that the Canada Elections Act provides for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete personal information protection regime for these parties across Canada. This has been the case since May 31, 2000, which is when the Canada Elections Act was repealed and replaced through a major modernization.
Second, the bill also proposes additional requirements for a federal political party’s personal information policy going forward, including that it be available in both official languages; be written in plain language; state the types of personal information it retains, uses, discloses, disposes of, et cetera; and explain how the party carries out its activities in relation to personal information using illustrative examples. Eligible and registered federal political parties and persons acting on their behalf would need to ensure that they comply with their personal information protection policies.
In the minister’s appearance in this chamber on Bill C-4 back in the spring, he also mentioned, “We also added administrative monetary penalties in the event of a breach.”
I understand that some senators would prefer a different regime be put in place, but I think it has been clearly demonstrated that the elected representatives in the other place would prefer what the government is proposing in Bill C-4. While Parliament’s intent on these matters is long established, the explicit inclusion of these measures in Bill C-4 ensures greater clarity of this intent and timely implementation.
So here we have a whole range of very good reasons for us to support a timely passage of Bill C-4. It would first implement the government’s middle-class tax cut for hard-working Canadians, saving them hundreds of dollars a year. It would then make the first-time home buyers’ GST/HST rebate a reality, saving them up to $50,000 on their purchase of a new home valued at up to $1 million.
As I noted, this is an important complement to existing measures the government has introduced to help Canadian homebuyers make their first down payment, including the First Home Savings Account, or FHSA, the RRSP Home Buyers’ Plan, or HBP, and the First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit, or HBTC.
I believe demand-side measures like the first-time home buyers’ GST/HST rebate will be key to balancing out the supply side of the housing equation, where the government is advancing a comprehensive plan to build more homes using a Team Canada approach that brings all of Canada’s governments to the table in accelerating the expansion of our housing supply.
Further, Bill C-4 would permanently legislate the removal of the federal consumer fuel charge, allowing the government to refocus and reinforce its carbon pollution reduction efforts in a way that is fair to Canadians and supportive of clean growth. Taken together, the measures included in Bill C-4 would help set the stage for a more affordable and prosperous Canada, including by allowing Canadians to keep more of what they earn.
I believe now is the right time to deliver this financial support, as Canadians continue to feel the impact of ongoing challenges, including the uncertainties brought about by developments on the trade and tariff front.
This bill has been delayed for quite some time, as we know, and I believe now is the right time to move it to committee for further study and provide for the timely passage of Bill C-4, which would make this support for Canadians a reality.
Thank you, meegwetch. I would be happy to take questions.
Senator Cuzner, thank you very much for your speech. I have a few questions for you.
First, the income tax cut in Bill C-4, which the Liberal government boasted initially would deliver real change, will actually only save the working poor about $11 a year. That is what Senior Economist David MacDonald told the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance recently. Yet, in the April election, Prime Minister Carney stated this tax cut would benefit a two-income family by about $825 a year.
This senior economist told the Senate committee that the Liberal claim was misleading. Mr. MacDonald told senators:
The drop in the bottom bracket rate has been pitched as an affordability measure, but provides effectively no benefit to those in poverty and little benefit to those in the middle class.
Senator Cuzner, how can the Carney Liberal government claim this miniscule measure, amounting to less than a dollar per month for the working poor, provides Canadians with substantial affordability relief?
Thank you, Senator Batters, for that question.
I would think, obviously, the numbers provided by the officials at Finance — a department with 600 officials in it — cannot be cast aside by one economist. They are confident that this initiative will benefit 22 million Canadians and that there will be a benefit of $840 per year for a couple. This is one measure for Canadians to help with affordability. It is obviously driven by affordability. It is one of only many. We know that the grocery goods and service relief in Bill C-19 is going to be another measure. I hope all senators support that measure as well.
Certainly, I think we sometimes have to take a leap of faith with the people who provide us with those kinds of numbers, figures and data when we present this, and I hope that the senators see the merit in that.
That economist was actually from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which generally stands up for the working poor in Canada.
I want to go on to another question. As you noted in your speech today, Finance Minister Champagne came to the Senate for a Committee of the Whole in June, where we had some opportunity to ask him questions about Bill C-4.
Since the government finally saw the error of their ways on the consumer carbon tax and was getting rid of it, I asked the minister this question:
Minister, I want to know how much money — how many billions of dollars — your Liberal government took out of the pockets of Canadians for the carbon tax you charged them for six years. You have been the minister for several months, so you must know the number. How much is it?
Surprisingly, he did not give me a number. So I quoted from an April article in the National Post that estimated that the total the government had collected over the length of the carbon tax program came out to almost $45 billion.
Again, when I pressed him on that, Minister Champagne did not answer what the amount actually was, so I asked him to provide that to us in writing. I did not receive any sort of answer.
Given that it is now seven or eight months after that time frame, do you know what that answer is?
No, I absolutely don’t, and I don’t think anybody would expect me to know that number. What I know is that the gas tax was something that — and I know there are many strong voices in the chamber who advocate on a regular and continual basis for the reduction in greenhouse gases and who are working toward a greener, more sustainable economy. There has been some disappointment in the cancellation of that gas tax.
The fact is that Canadians have made their minds up through that constant message of “It’s a bad thing.” When election time came, 80% of Canadians supported the two parties that said they would cancel the gas tax — 80% of Canadians supported that initiative. That’s why we got that back, but I certainly wouldn’t be able to provide her with the answer that she seeks.
Thank you. Being that you’re the sponsor of this government bill, perhaps you could ask the government to provide you with an answer and give it to us, since you are the person to whom we need to ask questions. I don’t believe the government is going to put up a speaker on this for us to be able to ask the government a question, so you are the person to try to get those answers. I would appreciate that.
My last question on that is about another area I questioned Minister Champagne on in June at the Committee of the Whole. It was on what seemed to be an unintended consequence of reducing the value of the Disability Tax Credit by virtue of that tax cut in Bill C-4. There was a small amendment needed that was being advocated for by the National Disability Network. It was an area that Senator Petitclerc questioned the minister about that day. When she didn’t get an answer, I followed up on it. The National Disability Network had written the minister a letter which listed several examples of situations where persons with disabilities would have actually been negatively impacted by the reduction of the Disability Tax Credit, even with that modest income tax factor factored in.
Minister Champagne was kind of doubting that. I asked him to refer to that letter and to definitely respond to that. I asked him for a written response to those examples, and he ended his questioning by me by saying, “Senator, we will respond to that letter and provide you a copy.” I never received such a copy. We checked back today to make sure I didn’t miss it in my inbox or something like that. I’m quite certain I didn’t receive a copy. What’s the answer to that? Have they made that amendment? If not, why not?
Thank you very much, Senator Batters, for that. It will give me the opportunity to thank the senators who showed up at the initial briefing on Bill C-4 and brought that forward in a very strong message. We were able to press the minister at the time, Minister Champagne. You would know that in the budget implementation act, he did, in fact, make those taxpayers whole on that. He has fixed it.
I recently met with Amanda MacKenzie. She’s the government relations person for March of Dimes Canada. I believe that’s where the initial letter would have come from. They are very pleased. They get the vast majority of their actual data and information from Inclusion Canada, and Inclusion Canada said, “Yes, this fixes the problem in the budget bill.” I would hope that the senator wanting that fixed will be able to support the budget bill.
I just want to follow up on that. Are you saying, then, that they decided not to amend Bill C-4, but, instead, they amended the budget implementation act, which was drafted and introduced much later than this bill, Bill C-4? And Bill C-4 did just get passed in the House of Commons quite recently.
The provision to make them whole was included in the budget bill, yes. It was brought forward, and, again, I thank the senators who invested the time to bring that forward.
Would Senator Cuzner take another question?
Absolutely.
Senator, you began your comments by talking about the non-partisan nature of the unveiling of former prime minister Stephen Harper’s portrait yesterday. You talked about the way parties can come together.
One way that parties have come together is to deal with Part 4 of this bill, in which all parties have agreed to a privacy provision that is far lower than that which we impose on our businesses and on our public sector, and it means that the information that parties gather about voters is uniquely vulnerable.
Can you please explain to those of us who are not elected and not members of political parties why political parties should be allowed to carve themselves out a privacy regime that is so dramatically less effective than that which we impose on private sector operators?
Thank you very much, Senator Simons.
This was the first opportunity that the government had to bring forward a clarification on a piece of legislation that was passed in May 2000. It was passed by the House and signed off on and passed by the Senate. It not only provides a clarification but also goes beyond the clarification. I had mentioned in my speech what it also calls for. The minister said in his presentation here, when he was in the chamber, that they also included monetary fines for those who don’t comply.
I absolutely respect the fact that you’re not a member of a political party. I have been, may still be. I apologize for that. You refer to yesterday’s ceremony. There was a former Conservative prime minister and a Liberal prime minister, and both of them paid their respects to the people who showed up and volunteered, unlike down in the States, where most people are hired guns. Here in Canada, we still do it with people who step up. I know for a fact that in every riding in this country, if they have a financial officer, that financial officer is a certified accountant. Every time they sign off on a document, their reputation is on the line.
Asking for each party to have someone who is responsible for privacy, that’s what the government feels would be just at this time, and they think nothing in this bill precludes further provisions on personal information. They think that this is appropriate at the time.
Would you take a follow-up question?
Yes.
The challenge when you say there are fines for people who break the rules is that the parties themselves, as I read this act, are allowed to set their own rules. It seems to me that because all the parties think this is a great idea, it is, perhaps, proof of the obverse. Of course, the parties like this system because it holds them to a lower account.
Don’t you agree that more needs to be done to protect the extraordinary amount of demographic and economic information that parties collect on voters, especially because we’re not just talking about a bunch of well-meaning volunteers; we’re talking about extremely well-funded analysts who create voter lists that are rich in information valuable not just to political parties but to all other kinds of operators?
I’m not naive enough to think that there are no nefarious actors here. I know it’s not mandatory to report breaches, but even so, in 25 years, there have been four breaches. Two were accidental. Information is like water; it finds its way out, so people know about those breaches.
Again, there’s nothing in the legislation that precludes the government from going further. Right now, we know that what the government wants to do is to clarify their position at Elections Canada.
We should take pride as well, as Canadians, in Elections Canada and the trust we put in Elections Canada. Most Canadians see it as fair, impartial and professional. We’re recognized around the globe for the work that Elections Canada does. The government is placing their trust in that process.
I have a follow-up question, if I may.
Yes, yes.
It’s my understanding that the Chief Electoral Officer opposes this legislative regime.
I know that the Chief Electoral Officer would like deeper and more complete rules around the protection of personal information, but I’m not aware that he opposes this initiative.
Colleagues, it is a pleasure to be back with you after a seven-week break that gave us time to recharge our batteries and get ready to resume our work, which includes this speech.
Before I comment on Bill C-4, I’d like to say a few things now that we have an opportunity to define the relationship between a new government and a reformed, more independent Senate.
Most of us wouldn’t want to go back to being an echo chamber for party lines coming from the other place. Rather, we want to add value to the work of Parliament while remaining mindful of the restraint required of our unelected chamber. That’s why listening is important to us, especially listening to people who’ve been ignored or forgotten by the government or political parties.
We also want to make sure that this chamber functions effectively, while encouraging a thorough consideration of the important issues presented to us.
With these broad principles in mind, I will now speak to Bill C-4.
Senator Cuzner gave us an excellent presentation on the importance of the bill’s tax measures. I thank him very much for that.
It is also important to remember the discussions that we had with the finance minister, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, on June 17, during a committee of the whole meeting on the subject matter of Bill C-4. From what I understand, Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the bill — which are found in the first 20 pages of a 23-page document, so the majority of the bill’s content — propose a reduction in the lowest income tax rate, a GST credit for first-time home buyers and the repeal of the complex consumer carbon tax system. These are real financial measures, and they reflect recent election promises.
The principles underlying these parts of the bill can therefore not be challenged by the Senate. However, that does not mean that we should not carefully study the content of the bill and the impact of these parts at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and suggest amendments to correct any errors or oversights.
However, Part 4, which would amend the Canada Elections Act, is a different story.
Part 4 of the bill begins by setting out its purpose as authorizing political parties to “. . . carry out any activities in relation to personal information . . . .” It adds that, in so doing, they “. . . cannot be required to comply with an Act of a province or territory that regulates activities in relation to personal information . . . .”
Clearly, Part 4 is not a budgetary issue. As Elizabeth May said at second reading in the other place, these amendments do “. . . not belong in an affordability act at all.”
Why, then, include this Part 4? The answer is that it is simply an attempt to fast-track amendments to the Canada Elections Act.
Why the rush, you may ask? As you may know, colleagues, in 2000, our Parliament enacted the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, to establish “. . . rules to govern the collection, use and disclosure of personal information . . . .” by federally regulated private sector organizations. Senator Simons has referred to this. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada oversees compliance with PIPEDA.
Unfortunately, such protections do not apply to federal political parties. They care about business, but not that type of business, I suppose. They collect information and use personal data. Parliamentary records show that they wish to be free from such a comprehensive set of rules on privacy and the use of personal data, and especially oversight by an independent expert in privacy.
Considering the absence of federal rights and protections until now, in March 2022, the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner concluded that B.C. residents were constitutionally entitled to the protection provided by the B.C. Personal Information Protection Act. This act, which is similar to the federal act I referred to, requires that citizens be informed of the personal information that is being held, how it is being used and to whom it has been disclosed. The B.C. act also includes the right to ask for a correction of an error or omission in the personal information.
Federal political parties challenged that decision. In a judgment released in May 2024, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed political parties’ attempt to annul the decision of the B.C. Privacy Commissioner. Subsequently, the political parties filed an appeal. In June 2025, the B.C. Court of Appeal stayed the appeal, pending the outcome of Bill C-4.
Here is the reason for the rush: If Part 4 is adopted, the provisions against the application of provincial laws will be deemed to have come into force on May 31, 2000 — yes, 25 years ago. That will end the pending appeal, of course.
Part 4 thus seems to be an attempt by the new government to use a financial bill as an expedient means to enact unrelated items, a practice that this chamber has deplored on many occasions. The problem with the inclusion of non-budgetary issues in financial bills is that such issues are buried among financial issues of great importance and are often subject to time constraints, preventing a thorough review of the non-financial provisions. That problem is compounded by the fact that in the other place, these bills are reviewed only by their Finance Committee and are not spread between committees like in the Senate.
Unfortunately, this is the case with the bill before us. Though the House of Commons Finance Committee dedicated six meetings to Bill C-4, there were no questions raised by its members on Part 4. Further, its report proposed various amendments to Part 2 but said nothing about Part 4. However, on the website of the House of Commons Finance Committee, you will find seven briefs raising concerns, proposing amendments or asking for the removal of Part 4, including from the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, OpenMedia, the Centre for Digital Rights, the Information Commissioner of Canada and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
On December 11, 2025, after a few short speeches, the bill passed without a formal vote as part of an adjournment motion. Everyone was happy to leave the Hill. Furthermore, while Part 4 requires federal parties to adopt and publish a privacy policy on their websites — something Senator Cuzner referred to — it doesn’t ask for much in terms of content. It only needs to designate a privacy officer and indicate their name and contact information; outline the types of personal information collected and how they will use it; and describe the training provided to the data handlers to protect personal data.
Unlike the federal acts, Part 4 does not include statutory requirements for parties: first, to identify in advance of collection the purposes for which personal information is collected; second, to obtain individual consent; third, to limit the collection of personal information to the identified purposes; fourth, to limit the use and disclosure of personal information to those purposes; fifth, to provide means for individuals to seek access to their information; and sixth, to allow individuals to exercise a right of correction. There is not even a requirement that the data be kept in Canada, so it could be processed in the U.S. or maybe elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this lack of substantive content is not a first. In 2023, Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 included amendments to the Canada Elections Act to “. . . provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime . . . .” — it sounds a bit similar to what we have before us — for the “. . . collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information” by federal political parties.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia concluded that it was an empty shelf and it could not be proposed to the Province of B.C. That’s why we now have a bill that says provincial laws cannot apply.
Once reviewed by our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, it reported that the proposed amendments created a framework but did not establish the promised regime. The committee added that such amendments should have been introduced in a separate bill to “allow for a thorough study.” The current bill is a similar attempt to enact a mere framework despite the fact that in March 2024, a controversial bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, Bill C-65, which died on the Order Paper, included substantive provisions for protecting personal information, including provisions on access and distribution steps to be taken in case of a data breach and a prohibition from selling this data.
In support of these provisions in Bill C-65, the parliamentary secretary, who initiated second reading of Bill C-65 in the other place, said, “We have a Privacy Commissioner and many parliamentarians who I believe are very much concerned about the privacy issue. . . .”
I think he’s right. We have shown it so far, and we will show it more. Speaking of the bill, he also said:
Federal privacy regimes would also bolster privacy requirements for political parties and would ensure a single, complete and comprehensive federal privacy regime.
Unfortunately, unlike Bill C-65, what is proposed in Part 4 of Bill C-4 is essentially a container without much content, leaving Canadians vulnerable to insufficient data protection policies adopted separately by each political party. It doesn’t go as far as even Bill C-65 proposed. It is far from a single and comprehensive privacy regime for political parties.
Some will say that parties consider it more important to protect the way they choose to operate than the privacy rights of Canadians. For one, I am troubled by that because, domestically and internationally, privacy is a right of fundamental importance.
As the Supreme Court of Canada said, “The ability of individuals to control their personal information is intimately connected to their individual autonomy, dignity and privacy. . . .”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, recognized that privacy protection legislation is of a quasi‑constitutional nature. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has acknowledged such legislation plays a fundamental role “. . . in the preservation of a free and democratic society.”
Incidentally, in the previous Parliament, when Minister Champagne was the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, he sponsored Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022, and the preamble of the bill stated:
. . . personal information is essential to individual autonomy and dignity and to the full enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms in Canada . . . .
I am sure that as the finance minister, he still believes that this is the case, and he understands our concerns.
In conclusion, while I see no constitutional issue with Parliament ousting provincial standards and imposing a single, complete and comprehensive privacy regime on federal political parties, as they have done on federally regulated enterprises and undertakings, the bill before us seems to merely create the illusion of protecting personal information and the privacy of voters.
For these reasons, I consider that Part 4 should be thoroughly reviewed by our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Thank you for your attention.
Senator, will you take a question?
Yes, but we don’t have much time left.
Before you answer, I just wanted to mention that your time is up. Would you like more time to answer the question?
Can I ask for three more minutes before we adjourn?
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Just seeking your opinion as a lawyer and a judge on this issue, as Senator Simons pointed out and as other senators have as well, Part 4 of Bill C-4 discriminates against private sector interests and their requirements on privacy. Do you see a constitutional or a legal issue surrounding that or a challenge that may be possible at that level?
Therefore, would you recommend that Part 4 be hived off from this bill so that it can be dealt with?
Thank you very much. That’s a very good question.
I’m recommending that this be sent to committee for a thorough review where experts can testify. That can be done in an expeditious way in the coming week and maybe during the break. Bill C-4 motions intend to allow for that.
That being said, I won’t opine on the constitutionality, except that I think Parliament could be entitled, legally speaking, to regulate federal political parties. Will a regime be established for federal political parties that is different from business? The answer is “yes.” We also have the Privacy Act that applies to government departments and federal agencies. We have separate regimes: one for enterprises, one for the government and one for political parties. What I wish we can have are regimes that provide equal rights and that may be adapted to the situation of political parties.
For me, I’d be interested to know what they have within the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party when they canvass at my door and ask me questions. They don’t tell me, “We’re going to record what you say and put it in your file.” I would like them to tell me, “We will ask you questions, but before you answer, you are entitled to remain silent. If you answer, we will add the information to our data, and we may do many things with it, such as transferring it to somebody else or sharing it with whomever.” I wish they would tell me that, and then I would answer their question by saying, “Thank you very much for your visit” and then lock the door. That is how I will protect my privacy.
I think that is what’s missing in this bill. It is too minimalist to address some of the concerns I have. Maybe the committee can report on that. Maybe the ministers can come with an undertaking that something will be done to address the next step of the regulation of privacy issues for political parties. Thank you.
It’s not just the questions that are asked, senator, but it’s also the observations that those whom are collecting the information may make by looking at how many children are in the house or how many cars are in the driveway, which may not be factual at all. That is included, and it poses, I think, a different issue and a more problematic one.
