Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Bill

Honourable senators, I’m rising to propose a sunset provision.

Dear colleagues, like most of you, my concerns with Part 4 rest on the paucity of privacy rights for Canadians the proposed national regime requires parties to recognize.

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs mentioned the lack of minimum privacy standards aligned with recognized privacy principles. There is no obligation to report privacy breaches; no prohibition on selling data or maliciously disclosing personal information; a lack of proper administrative investigation tools for the Commissioner of Canada Elections; and no measures to protect data sovereignty and guard against foreign interference.

My other concern is about the lack of effective and independent oversight. Before the committee, the Commissioner of Canada Elections stated that the proposed amendments would not give her office effective authority to ensure minimum basic rights for Canadians. As Ms. Simard said, enforcement would be made more difficult by the need to enforce 15 different policies, compounded by limitations on her office’s ability to collect and access evidence.

In 2018, in a report entitled Addressing Digital Privacy Vulnerabilities and Potential Threats to Canada’s Democratic Electoral Process, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics expressed “. . . grave concerns that the Canadian democratic and electoral process is . . . vulnerable to improper acquisition and manipulation of personal data.”

It recommended “That the government of Canada immediately begin implementing measures in order to ensure that data protections similar to the —” European Union’s “— General Data Protection Regulation are put in place for Canadians . . .” The European Union data regime applies to political parties, incidentally.

Unfortunately, Part 4 of Bill C-4 does not follow that report. What I propose is pushing the government to look at that and for political parties to focus on that while giving them enough time to focus properly: three years. That is the sunset provision I am proposing.

A sunset provision makes certain provisions of a law take effect at the time of Royal Assent but cease to have effect on a predetermined date. In this case, I am proposing three years.

This means that, in three years’ time, we would wind up back in the same situation, with the provisions that are currently in force.

That’s why the proposal I’m about to read to you is a little long, because we need to reintroduce the provisions that will cease to have effect three years after Royal Assent. They would need to be put back into the act in three years’ time.

The principle is simple. The current situation is untenable for political parties. We understand that and we accept it. The provisions will come into force shortly, upon Royal Assent, but if you do nothing, then in three years’ time, you’ll end up back in the same position that you now find untenable.

You therefore have three years to find a solution to improve the system for protecting Canadians’ rights.

That is what I am proposing. The sunset provision will achieve, upon Royal Assent, the results expected by the government, the House of Commons and the political parties: the exclusion of provincial privacy laws, the likely end to the proceedings in B.C. and the barring of the introduction of similar proceedings in other provinces, so they get the shield they are looking for.

However, during the proposed three-year period, the government, after consultation with the political parties, would have to propose provisions on privacy rights resulting in a more robust privacy regime. The initiative would thus remain with the other place, the political parties and the government.

This would mirror the comments of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Cuzner — I’m getting his attention — in this chamber and before the Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, when he said, “Part 4 does not preclude further legislation specifying more comprehensive privacy standards for federal political parties.”

Failing a new bill within the next few years, Part 4 would cease to have effect. These provisions would then be repealed, and the current provisions of the Canada Elections Act would come into force again.

In other words, there would be a strong incentive for the political parties — the House of Commons and the government — to address this issue should we improve that system, that national regime that we’re setting in place? If so, how should we improve it in order to make it a true national regime, not only for the political parties, but also a regime that is better at protecting at least the minimum rights of Canadians in terms of privacy, adjusted to the context of federal political parties?

Of course, if we adopt the sunset clause tonight, the final word will belong to the House of Commons. Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that the government could propose to MPs not to agree with this sunset provision.

Yet, if the government were to do so, it would make it clear to Canadians that the parties are not ready to grant more rights to the voters than those which are provided in Part 4 — the very voters whose confidence they wish to gain by supporting them.

You are about to hear the text. You will see that it’s not written in technical terms; it’s only in legal terms. It’s difficult to understand, but, essentially, it says that Part 4 will come to an end in three years after Royal Assent, and the provisions that are abrogated now will be put back into the Canada Elections Act.

According to the rules, I must read it. I cannot dispense, I suppose? So I will read it: