Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Bill
Third Reading--Debate
February 25, 2026
Moved third reading of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.
He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Bill C-4, the government’s bill entitled “Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act.”
While this bill has been with us for quite some time, I do believe it is an important piece of legislation that will deliver some much-needed relief for many Canadians. As you know, Bill C-4 will first legislate the delivery of the government’s middle-class tax cut, which is targeted at providing tax relief for nearly 22 million Canadians and saving two-income families up to $840 a year.
The bill will also provide for the elimination of the goods and services tax, or GST, for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued 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. On top of that, Bill C-4 would legislate the removal of the consumer carbon price, following its cancellation, effective as of April 1, 2025.
The government is carrying out its commitment to deliver a middle-class tax cut to nearly 22 million Canadians. This is all money that Canadians will then be able to spend where it matters most for them. The government reduced the federal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14% for the lowest bracket, effective July 1, 2025. In 2026, this is the tax rate that will be applied on up to $58,523 of taxable income. This means that virtually anyone who pays federal income tax will benefit from this. Nearly half of the total value of the tax relief is going to those in the lowest bracket.
It is important to note that the Canada Revenue Agency has already updated its source deduction tables. They did this to ensure that employers and pay administrators were able to reduce tax withholdings as of July 1, 2025. This means that Canadians have already begun benefiting from this lower tax rate. This middle-class tax cut is expected to deliver more than $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over five years, starting in 2025-26, and it is only fair to say that it represents significant support for Canadians facing broad challenges of affordability, especially during these uncertain financial times.
Colleagues, Bill C-4 also brings forward an important measure to make housing more affordable in this country. As some of you may have heard, Desjardins’ economic studies published a report last year 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 definitely worrisome, and I am of the view that something has to be done to address this housing access issue. The government has already rolled out a number of measures to make housing more affordable.
For example, the government has, in recent years, implemented a series of measures aimed at both increasing the supply of housing and also helping Canadians make that first down payment on a home. Now, Bill C-4 would complement these measures by eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on purchases of new homes valued up to $1 million. This new first-time homebuyers’ GST rebate would mean upfront savings of up to $50,000 on the purchase of their first newly built home. Upon receiving Royal Assent, the rebate would also lower the GST on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million for first‑time homebuyers. In short, the rebate would be phased out in a linear manner for new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.
Under this linear phase-out, a new home valued at $1.25 million would be eligible for a rebate of 50% of the maximum first-time homebuyers’ GST rebate, which still means savings of $25,000.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer concluded, based on support parameters, that the new first-time homebuyers’ GST rebate included in the legislation would provide an average subsidy of around $27,000 to first-time homebuyers on their purchase of a new home. That is very significant, so by supporting Bill C-4, we would allow the government to lower the upfront cost of buying a new home for young Canadians and spur construction of new homes across this country. By doing so, we would also be helping more young people and families achieve their dream of home ownership and begin investing in their futures, their families, their peace, their comfort and their retirement.
Colleagues, one of the first things Prime Minister Carney did upon assuming his responsibilities last year was to cease the application of the federal consumer fuel charge, effective April 1, 2025. However, it is important to understand that this was effectively accomplished through government regulations. Bill C-4 would now take the next step beyond the regulatory ceasing of the fuel charge by completely removing the federal consumer carbon price from Canadian law. As a result, the fuel charge would be permanently repealed. That being said, the government said this doesn’t change anything about its commitment to fight climate change.
For example, 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. Industrial carbon pricing is one of the most important greenhouse gas emission 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 Canadian jobs.
As many of you know — those who have been following the bill — it 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. This provision 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.
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 and disposes of; 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.
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. Ensuring clarity in Canada’s laws and legislation is an important priority for any government, and it’s yet another benefit that would flow from Bill C-4.
In conclusion, colleagues, Bill C-4 is an important piece of legislation that would allow the government to implement, among other things, its middle-class tax cut for hard-working Canadians, saving them hundreds of dollars a year. Bill C-4 would also make the first-time home buyers’ GST rebate a reality. This measure would save eligible first-time homebuyers up to $50,000 on their purchase of a new home valued at up to $1 million and allow savings to extend all the way up to new homes valued at up to $1.5 million. Finally, Bill C-4 would permanently legislate the removal of the federal consumer fuel charge. This would allow 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, these measures would deliver help to make life more affordable for Canadians during these uncertain times. As you know, the global landscape is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. As Canadians continue to feel the impact of these ongoing challenges, including the uncertainties brought about by developments on the trade and tariff front, I believe that the time is right to deliver some tax relief.
As a result, I would invite all of you, esteemed colleagues, to support the passage of Bill C-4 so that the government can deliver this support to Canadians in a timely manner.
Thank you. Meegwetch.
Would the honourable senator take a question?
Yes.
Thank you for your remarks. If we can just set aside some of the arguments that you’ve made about the benefits to consumers and taxpayers and all of that, the bone of contention here, as raised by many of us over time, has been the implanting of this part about skirting privacy rights for political parties, which has been snuck into the bill. It does not belong here in any way, shape or form, and we’d like to have that discussion separate from the benefits that might accrue to taxpayers.
I still have not heard an adequate explanation, other than straight-up politics, as to why this has been inserted in this bill, and it does not allow us to have a discussion about something that’s fundamentally important. It is fundamentally important whether political parties are exempt from the privacy laws of this country and whether there are any controls at all — and this is an issue we deal with on many fronts — on what those political parties can do with our personal information, such as a fine down the road, which would not give us any way of ever determining whether our data had been sold, misused or misrepresented.
I am asking one more time if you would appeal to those in power to take this part out so that it can be properly debated.
Thank you very much, Senator Wallin. I appreciate your comments about Parts 1, 2 and 3 and the benefits to Canadians.
On Part 4, obviously, there were significant interventions on that aspect of the bill. The government and those representing the government were clear in their intent. Their position was that this particular aspect is about jurisdiction. This is about federal political parties not having to comply with a patchwork of provincial laws. When you look at the financing of federal political parties, there is one rule across the country. They don’t have to comply with provincial rules because every province has different rules.
It is not a complete vacuum either. The parties have to present their privacy policies and have to post them online. Very good questions came from Senator Dasko and Senator Dalphond during committee. They quizzed the parties on the 10 principles of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, and they asked them, “Do you have this? Do you have that? Do you have to report in case of a breach?” Each one of the three parties represented during the hearing all had those aspects on their websites as part of their privacy policies.
There is compliance there, but, again — I know you won’t like this one — nothing precludes us from going further. I think that one thing the hearings showed us and the committee showed us is that this is a big issue and, certainly, an important issue. And it is the first time I sat on the Legal Committee, and I want to commend the Legal Committee for the depth and breadth of the questions and the quality of those that it presented. I am convinced that the political parties would like to see this as well, but this is not the bill to do that. There has to be another bill to go forward. That would be my position.
I think you’ve just made my point for me. This is not the bill in which to be having a discussion on a point of fundamental principle about our own personal data access and privacy — you know all of the arguments.
The question is: At this eleventh hour, can we please make some attempt to rescue a proper debate to be held in this chamber? We’ve heard this point made by others. It is not only our privilege to have a debate; it is our responsibility. This is what the chamber of sober second thought does. It debates legislation that is sometimes created on the back of an envelope or snuck into a bill in a Trojan Horse way — we’ve seen it lots of times — because they don’t want to have the debate.
This is not just another government handout or another measure that may or may not pass. This is not a fiscal measure. This is a fundamental measure, and we don’t want to be held to ransom here because by saying “no” to this bill due to Part 4, we would be denying Canadians access to government funds and help in difficult times. Just take it out. Let us have a proper debate. It is our job to look at these fundamental issues and debate them. Take Part 4 out of there, get on with your other measures, make that case — which you have — and let us in this chamber do the job that we are here to do.
Our constitutional obligation is to do that and study these contentious pieces of legislation and not have them slipped by in another bill hidden under the cover of aid to the Canadian population.
Thank you very much, senator. We are having this debate today so those points can be made to have an impact going forward.
I know that the broader issue of the role of the Senate has spread like a wildfire. This particular bill prompted that; there were two bills this week that prompted that discussion, and that’s a broader one.
I appreciate your intervention. Again, the government contends that this is about jurisdiction and not allowing the federal parties to be governed by provincial legislation.
Thank you for your speech, Senator Cuzner, and thank you for coming to the Legal Committee; it was nice to have you there.
One of the things that we heard during that marathon day — I think we had eight hours of Legal Committee in one day — was a panel that actually had the chief counsel from three of the major political parties — the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party — and they were giving what I thought was quite cogent evidence about why Part 4 was needed. They talked about a national framework so that we don’t have 13 different provincial and territorial frameworks, and how that would potentially help Canadians’ privacy.
I didn’t hear very much in your speech about that panel and what evidence they gave us, so could you provide us with a little more information on that, please?
Again, I thought they presented their cases well during the testimony. So much of the testimony and so many of the interventions were around policy. Again, they continued to go back to jurisdiction.
However, it was unanimous from those who presented that they believe in a single, comprehensive, exclusive, uniform national regime. All three advocated for that. I know that Ms. Denham, who worked in the U.K. and B.C. in privacy protection, talked about the model used in the U.K. They have a policy, but there are special provisions for companies, government and political parties. That is something that would be explored. Two of the lawyers mentioned that they would appreciate looking at that type of legislation, and that could be done in a broader study on this.
The presentations they gave were fairly concise with regard to jurisdiction. Again, they all recognized that privacy is paramount, and they had no objections to taking a deeper dive into it.
Thank you.
Also, with respect to unanimity, as you were just referencing, I will just refer to something we also heard about: When the House of Commons had a vote on this, the only standing vote they had on Bill C-4 was at second reading in, I believe, June 2024. Every single MP who voted on it, voted for it. That wasn’t a matter of political parties; that was every member of the Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green and Bloc parties — every single one of them voted in favour of it.
We talk about the important deference that we, as an unelected chamber, must have. Yes, we need to provide sober second thought, but we also have to be cognizant of that. I will ask you this question as someone who sat in the other place for 20 years as a Liberal MP in government and opposition, and now we are sitting here. Can you please tell us what you see as being the important deference we should have regarding the people who have been doing that door-knocking, who are hearing from and are responsible to their constituents, and who sit in the House of Commons casting votes on behalf of the constituents in their ridings?
The first word that occurs to me is “shock” that all parties came together and supported something unanimously. “Rare” would be the other word. I think it does send a strong message to this place.
I listened to Senator Simons a few months ago speaking about the Salisbury Convention and what have you. I know this isn’t mentioned in the platforms of the parties, but this was an ongoing issue. It was before the courts and was known. So, I think deference does matter in this case.
Again, though, as I try to figure out this place — I was the newest member of the “Ledge,” so it was a real experience for me in many ways. It must be something unique to see the parties come together and support it like that. They share a special, exclusive piece of real estate where people put their names on a ballot and go out, and I know there are a number of people in the chamber here who have done that. It is extraordinary to do that, and then to rally the support of volunteers to come out. There are 343 different ridings across this country. We ask Canadians to step up, and they do that willingly. We do it through volunteers for the most part.
One thing that the government representatives consistently agreed on was that having 13 different regimes to respond to puts a fairly significant burden on federal parties. Again, they went back to the fact that they believe in a national, uniform regime, and that they are willing to work toward that.
Senator Cuzner, would you take a question?
Absolutely, yes.
No one here disputes the idea that political parties must come under provincial jurisdiction; that’s not the issue. However, I’m having a hard time following the government’s logic. We held eight hours of meetings with a lot of lobby groups, but we also had Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne appear as a witness, who is the expert on such matters. He came to tell us that the bill required a number of amendments to bring it in line with the fundamental principles of privacy in Canada.
The first of these principles is consent. As impossible as it seems, this bill doesn’t require a voter’s consent for the disclosure of private information. This goes against every privacy law we have in Canada. In 2026, how can anyone defend a bill that doesn’t require political parties to obtain voters’ consent before gathering their private data? I find that inconceivable.
Thank you very much. My interpretation wasn’t great, but I thought I heard you say that you would be supporting the vote? No? Okay, then.
On the issue regarding privacy, I reiterate that the parties know and realize that it is significant and important. When we look back, there was an important piece of legislation here before Parliament prorogued and the writ was dropped. Bill C-65, which died on the Order Paper, had many of these provisions in it. It made it to second reading. It was a complex and, in some ways, contentious piece of legislation. If we are looking for a standalone piece of legislation, then, yes, something like Bill C-65 should probably come forward again. But I don’t think there are any objections with going further with the protection of personal information. It is just that this is about provincial jurisdiction being applied to federal parties.
Once again, I’m left speechless, because the fact is that Bill C-65 included several provisions that seemed to suggest that the political parties would protect privacy. The bill was drafted and a number of its provisions were worthwhile; if time was an issue, you could have used this bill in place of Part 4. That would have solved the problem. It hardly seems like rocket science to me.
Well, obviously, it does for the government. I would hope — and the sense I get is — that the government itself understands the need for legislation around this and it would be forthcoming. That’s my hope and my sense. We will wait for that. That is the best I can offer you.
Would my honourable colleague from Cape Breton take another question?
Yes.
One of the things that was said that I read in the preliminary transcript was that the Commissioner of Canada Elections pointed out the fact that each privacy regime of the political parties has vague language that is frequently changed. They are not aligned; they are all different.
This is the second time we have seen the language “national,” “uniform,” “exclusive” and “complete,” and it’s the second time we’ve seen “uniform” and “complete” missing. We see “national” and “exclusive.” That’s where the doubt comes from that this is a priority.
For me, it goes back to 2018 with that really consequential report that the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics produced. It was unanimously supported by the MPs on the committee. I didn’t see you among the group, but there were many names that we all recognized who went through that. It had 26 recommendations, none of which has been implemented, and the government of the day responded in the words of Minister Gould at the time:
. . . we share the view that it is necessary to modernize our privacy regime to ensure it provides clear, enforceable rules and supports the level of privacy protection that Canadians expect. The Committee’s most recent recommendations in this regard are a valuable contribution to the Government’s ongoing privacy modernization efforts.
However, there hasn’t been anything since 2018. Yet, a bill was tabled, which was Bill C-65. What was really interesting was listening to the lawyers.
I will get to my question. Thank you, Your Honour.
I listened to the lawyers saying that there are 117 new members of Parliament — new backbenchers, for the most part. That’s why they couldn’t include Bill C-65 in this bill. I doubt those 117 new MPs in the backbench have enough sway to hold up a piece of government legislation.
How are we to be convinced that you’re serious with your words — I believe you are — that the government is actually going to do something at this point that is respectful of international standards in terms of the privacy of political parties, knowing their standards need to be different than a corporation? In what ways? We have to see that defended, but what is your answer to that? I think that’s a fundamental concern here.
I think you’ve articulated the concerns of the chamber very well, Senator Deacon, and I appreciate your sense of belief in me.
The government officials spoke about a single, comprehensive, inclusive, uniform, national regime. As we get into these things, I, myself, was surprised that it was up to the parties to put together their own privacy policies; that surprised me. I was pleased to say that when they were quizzed on the principle around that, they did come up and have something for the right to correct. Each of the parties was asked: Do you have something on the right to correct, a duty to report in case of breach or an undertaking to not sell or share information? Those who were quizzed all had it as part of their policy, and it’s all posted online, but I was surprised myself that it wasn’t uniform.
Again, you talked about international standards and what’s going on in the U.K. They were not offended by that at all. They all expressed an interest in pursuing that.
I still don’t understand why, as it relates to this bill, in particular, there was no effort to include Bill C-65, which had made it to clause by clause. It could very easily have been pulled in. The reason given by the lawyers was not a valid reason, in my opinion.
The second thing I want you to think about for a second is this: We have a situation where we were discussing exactly the same situation before, almost three years ago. The promise keeps coming, but we are not getting a clear answer other than just a promise. No legislation has arrived. It hasn’t started in the Senate, for example, to try to get a third-party perspective, because our unbiased view would hear the views of the elected officials and others as to why it needs to be different. We’re just not seeing any action. I still haven’t really heard a reason why.
That’s why I think you’re hearing a lot of people in this chamber saying that we have to do something this time because the can keeps getting kicked down the road. I wanted to hear if you have any more to offer on that.
Senator Deacon, the intent of the government, I’m sure, is to move forward with something.
With this new government, I was pleased with Minister Champagne when he appeared here in the spring. When he appeared here and was pushed on one aspect of this particular bill and how it proved to be of no benefit to a group of Canadians with disabilities, he promised at the time to make it whole during the budget bill, and he did, in fact, do that. He came through with his promise on that.
My sense is that this is what has to be done.
But to adopt Bill C-65 — that bill had not been passed. There were still contentious aspects of it. Hopefully, those issues will come forward again in another piece of government legislation.
I have a rather different question, Senator Cuzner, and that is the figure that you’ve repeated a number of times in your speeches, which is a saving of $840 a year for a two-income family.
Could you share with us the research that goes into that decision to choose that 1 percentage point cut and the significance of $840 a year, given that a family with two incomes with $50,000 income is actually considered at the lower end of a “low income” definition in our country?
Yes, and it would be those in the lowest income brackets who are the greatest beneficiaries of this income tax cut.
I have seen Senator Boudreau’s bill come through with the increase in the GST. The government can provide some relief through the income tax system and direct benefits, like they are doing with GST, but the government understands that it’s a difficult time for a lot of Canadians. They believe that this will be —
The numbers that we received from the Parliamentary Budget Officer — there were a couple of people who provided them — I would have to take trust and faith in the numbers that were provided by the government via the Department of Finance on the impact this cut will make.
I will ask for a little more clarification on that. What we know is that, in this country, a family or an individual with an income of $3,000 a month is very close to the line of poverty. How would $840 a year make a substantial difference for almost anyone in Canada?
It will have an impact. Past governments have looked at direct benefits, too. We looked at the Canada Child Benefit, which brings almost $7,200 a year to families with children. We looked at $10-a-day child care, which provides more opportunities for people in that household to get out and find employment. Those are the types of benefits that will have an impact in day-to-day lives.
We could look at $850 as not a great deal, but I know that some people will look forward to it, and it will have an impact. It’s broad-based and, again, it’s focused specifically on the two lowest tax groups.
Will the senator take a question?
Yes.
Senator Cuzner, going back to Part 4, you’re aware that there’s a case before the B.C. Court of Appeal dealing with the issue of the application of provincial privacy regimes on federal political parties. That case will be argued in the near future. It’s quite likely the decision will be forthcoming, but that would be for about a year.
It’s quite likely that that case, whatever the decision is, would be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final decision. We know that the timeline for a case to be argued in front of the Supreme Court and then to receive a decision could be three to five years.
In terms of the urgency of Part 4, it seems that the federal political parties and the federal government have about three to five years to get ready for a definitive answer from the Supreme Court of Canada. It seems that it’s not as urgent as you think it may be.
That would be something decided by the legal minds and the legal opinions that the parties have received. They believe that they want to bring it to a head before it goes to the courts.
Senator Cuzner, correct me if I’m wrong, but Part 4 of Bill C-4, which consists of only a few clauses, deals with policies and controls regarding personal information when that information is collected by political parties. However, it is part of a much larger whole, specifically the Canada Elections Act, which sets out the terms and conditions for how the voters list is created, compiled and updated. The act also stipulates that the voters list must be provided to political parties and candidates so they may use it to communicate with voters in order to recruit them as party members and solicit political contributions.
It says “including” because it could be used for other purposes. However, the entire system is set up in such a way as to have legal authorization to collect this information and to share it. There is also the consent of the individual, who must agree when they contribute to the party or participate in activities. Am I wrong to assume that if this part were removed, it would remove something that complements the framework of the Canada Elections Act and eliminate additional protection for individuals’ personal information?
I don’t want to offer an uninformed opinion, but I think you’re correct on that, senator. It would expose itself should it be taken out.
Honourable senators, I would like to start by thanking the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for welcoming me yesterday. I was there for Bill C-4 but also took part in the Bill C-15 conversation. I had the chance to bring up Cornwall, which — as you all know — I love.
I want to thank Senator Cuzner for his hard work as the sponsor of this bill. He has been respectful, effective and thorough, and he always brings that sense of humour, which is just so beautiful. It really relaxes debate, and I thank him for that.
By now, most of us are familiar with Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act. I want to commend the government on Parts 1, 2 and 3. However, this bill has four parts, and I rise today to bring your attention to the problems with Part 4 and to ask for your support to delete this part of the bill.
Bill C-4, Part 4, amends the Canada Elections Act to ensure that activities of federal political parties, or FPPs, concerning the protection of personal information fall under federal jurisdiction.
I’m a member of the Legal Committee. We were tasked with studying Part 4 but without the ability to amend. After three panels, 18 witnesses, six hours of testimony and two hours of discussing what should go in the report, the members voted to include three recommendations for the National Finance Committee to consider:
1) That Part 4 of Bill C-4 be removed from the bill.
2) 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.
3) 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, or another reasonable timeframe that would give the government sufficient opportunity to develop a more robust and comprehensive uniform privacy regime applicable to FPPs.
A number of arguments have been made to keep Part 4, and I want to offer counterarguments for your consideration.
We’ve heard it said that the Senate should defer electoral matters to the House of Commons, as MPs are directly affected by changes in electoral law. I would argue that MPs have a vested interest in how federal political parties are managed and regulated, whereas senators do not and, therefore, serve as an effective check to ensure strong and reasonable election-related legislation.
When I hear that all the parties were in agreement, that feels like consensus, but it also feels like maybe Canadians should be nervous that all the parties are in agreement on this issue.
As Senator Tannas pointed out at the National Finance Committee yesterday, the other place discussed Part 4 for 20 seconds or maybe a bit more. He eloquently stated:
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.
Senator Cuzner made this case:
. . . 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.
We heard him say that again today — that we should have a uniform privacy framework rather than a patchwork.
I agree, but my concern with Part 4 is not because I support a provincial patchwork or don’t want a federal regime. My concern is that Part 4 is a highly flawed federal regime.
Caroline Simard, Commissioner of Canada Elections; Philippe Dufresne, Privacy Commissioner of Canada; and Michael Harvey, Commissioner in the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, were asked if they had been consulted on Part 4. They had not. Given their testimony, it was very clear that their experience and expertise would contribute immensely to a far better federal regime than what is being proposed here.
A federal example that was frequently referenced at committee was the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA. That is Canada’s federal private sector privacy law regulating how businesses handle personal information during commercial activity.
PIPEDA set out 10 standards that have been accepted in this country for many years. Very briefly, the standards are: accountability; identifying the purpose; consent for the collection; limiting collection; limiting use, disclosure and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual access; and challenging compliance.
Part 4 does not meet these standards. In response to a question about British Columbia’s and Quebec’s provincial laws, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada said:
Those provinces’ laws have been deemed substantially similar to PIPEDA, so I would say the 10 fair information principles in PIPEDA have to be there. . . . those principles are there in Canada and internationally. We would need, in my view, a good reason to lower the bar.
Sara Bannerman, Professor and Canada Research Chair of Communication Policy and Governance, said:
. . . I think either subjecting political parties to the same 10 principles as businesses under PIPEDA, whether by incorporating the 10 principles into the Canada Elections Act, if that’s what’s at hand at the moment, or doing it by a reform of PIPEDA, I think those things are important.
I want to add that federalism should be part of the conversation here, federalism and the discussion of jurisdiction.
Bill Hearn, External General Counsel to 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. . . . it shares the same flaws as past efforts and the FPPs —
— federal political parties —
— can’t sidestep Canada’s Constitution . . . by simply enacting a law that puts them beyond the legitimate jurisdictions of the provinces.
Allowing the federal political parties to set their own privacy standards does not create a uniform national framework; it does the opposite. Part 4 allows self-regulation of the parties, which risks — and, I would say, ensures — an inconsistent patchwork, if you will. The existing provincial privacy laws, while varied, provide enforceable minimum standards and independent oversight.
I don’t land on the side of provincial or federal regimes. I am on the side of legislation that makes things better, is grounded in existing best practices and is based on consultation with experts, like our commissioners, and involved parties, such as provinces. Part 4 does none of these things.
Another argument was made that political parties are already doing the responsible thing by having data policies clearly listed on their websites. Political party websites do use important words, such as “confidentiality,” “respect,” “security,” “accuracy,” “privacy” and “integrity.” But here’s what our witnesses had to say on this topic.
Michael Harvey, the 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, and, here again, these rights could only be exercised to the extent that they exist within a party’s own self-written policy.
Sara Bannerman 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. . . .
She continued:
. . . 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. . . .
I’ll quickly talk about the argument that fines exist and incentivize compliance. Matthew Hatfield, Executive Director of OpenMedia, told us that:
Currently, we’re in a system in Canada where, even when folk are found to be violating privacy, they will pay very negligible fines . . . . If you get caught, you pay it and you move on. . . .
So I asked Rachel Pereira from Democratic Institutions at the Privy Council Office about this, and she said:
. . . the Commissioner of Canada Elections has tools at her disposal, should there be a contravention of a party’s privacy policy . . . she can issue a warning letter . . . .
But if there is an infraction, and it is deemed to be one, then she can issue a monetary penalty of a minimum of $50 or more or $300 for an entity.
To this, Matthew Hatfield of OpenMedia responded, “I find that absurd.”
As many of you know, I have been a federal Liberal candidate two times and a municipal candidate several times. I have had campaign teams, managed volunteers, mailed and emailed letters and pamphlets, and knocked on so many doors. I want Canadians to trust the democratic process, trust political parties and be excited to vote. We are moving, I think, in the opposite direction.
My final argument for you today is that Part 4 further contributes to the erosion of democracy and trust in Canada.
Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, said:
. . . I believe that better safeguarding of electors’ personal information would help maintain Canadians’ trust in Canada’s political parties and, by extension, in the electoral process.
He added he believed it would:
. . . contribute to enhancing trust in the political process, writ large. Hopefully, we shouldn’t wait until we have a Cambridge Analytica . . . before protections are put in place.
Tamir Israel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said:
People in Canada do not want this 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’ve been a candidate in the course of my career. I’ve knocked on thousands of doors. Personally, this connection with voters and this relationship of trust are crucial. I don’t want this country to pass legislation that would undermine the bond of trust between the voters, their right to vote and the federal parties they vote for.
I ask you, colleagues, to support my request to delete this part.
