Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Bill
Motion in Amendment Adopted
February 26, 2026
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-4 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended on page 23 by adding the following after line 31:
“50 The Canada Elections Act is amended by
(a) repealing section 384.9;
(b) adding “and” at the end of paragraph 407(1)(a), striking out “and” at the end of paragraph 407(1)(b) and repealing paragraph 407(1)(c); and
(c) repealing sections 446.1 to 446.7.
51 The Canada Elections Act is amended by adding the following after section 385:
385.1 (1) Within three months after the day on which this section comes into force, the leader of a political party shall provide the Chief Electoral Officer with the party’s policy for the protection of personal information referred to in paragraph 385(2)(k) and the Internet address referred to in paragraph 385(2)(l), if
(a) before the day on which this section comes into force, the leader of the party has applied under section 385 for the party to become a registered party but, as of that day, the Chief Electoral Officer has not yet informed the leader under subsection 389(1) whether or not the party is eligible for registration under section 387; or
(b) on the day on which this section comes into force, the party is
(i) an eligible party, or
(ii) a registered party.
(2) If the leader of the political party does not comply with subsection (1), then
(a) in the case of a party referred to in paragraph (1)(a), the party is not eligible for registration under section 387;
(b) in the case of a party referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(i), the party may not become a registered party under section 390; and
(c) in the case of a party referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the Chief Electoral Officer shall implement the procedure for non-voluntary deregistration set out in sections 415, 416 and 418.
(3) If the leader of a political party provides the Chief Electoral Officer with the policy and the address referred to in subsection (1) in compliance with that subsection, or in compliance with section 415, then the policy and the address are deemed, as of the day on which they are provided, to be included in the application for registration referred to in subsection 385(2) in respect of the party.
385.2 (1) Despite the definition personal information in subsection 2(1), for the purposes of this section, personal information means information about an identifiable individual.
(2) In order to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election, any registered party or eligible party, as well as any person or organization acting on the party’s behalf, including the party’s candidates, electoral district associations, officers, agents, employees, volunteers and representatives, may, subject to this Act and any other applicable federal Act, collect, use, disclose, retain and dispose of personal information in accordance with the party’s privacy policy.
(3) The purpose of this section is to provide for a national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime applicable to registered parties and eligible parties respecting their collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information.
52 Clauses 45 and 49 of this Act are repealed.
53 Clauses 50 to 52 come into force on the third anniversary of the day on which this Act receives royal assent.”.
I want to begin by thanking the senators who worked in committee and spoke in the chamber to Bill C-4.
As I have mentioned many times in this chamber, 50% of my job is to represent the government in the Senate, and 50% of my job is to represent the Senate to the government.
For this part of my job, I want to tell you that I was listening very carefully to everything that was said tonight, and I will report to the government what the senators have so eloquently expressed.
However, 50% of my job is also to represent the government in the Senate. As such, I must express the government’s position on Bill C-4 and, in particular, on the amendment that Senator Dalphond just proposed.
My mandate this evening is expanding in spite of myself, since the message I am bringing to the Senate is not only the government’s message, but a unanimous message from the elected members of the House of Commons. What is this fundamental message? Let’s address the elephant in the room, forget about Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Bill C-4, and go directly to Part 4 of this bill.
What is the essential and fundamental message? The essential, fundamental message of this provision, of this part of the bill, is to create a uniform federal regime for elections in Canada, so that a Canadian in the Northwest Territories and a Canadian in the Maritimes, Quebec, British Columbia or the Prairies is governed by the same electoral system, regardless of their place of residence. That is the essence of the debate on Part 4 of Bill C-4, and it has the support of all but one member of the House of Commons.
How should the Senate react in a case of unanimous consent in the House of Commons?
The time is 8:20 p.m., and I am not going to repeat the wise words of Senator Harder, but I will just say that I endorse them entirely. I also support the quotes he gave and all of the comments he made about the Senate’s duty of restraint. This duty of restraint is all the more important when elected officials hold a unanimous position and when that unanimous position is on a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act, an act to which none of the senators in this chamber are subject.
I heard senators say on several occasions that they were speaking out to stand up for the rights of Canadians. As someone who’s been elected to another elected chamber, I sincerely believe that the elected members of the House of Commons also speak on behalf of Canadians, and that they do so based on their mandate, which, as Senator Clement repeatedly told us, they had the courage to obtain by going door to door to convince Canadian voters across the country that they were worthy of their trust. An unelected chamber’s obligation to defer to an elected chamber is all the more important when the system that elected officials are asking us to approve is one to which only they are subject.
What position should we take on the sunset clause?
Senator Dalphond was very specific about why we should reject a proposed amendment that would remove Part 4 of the bill, because if Part 4 were removed, we would end up in a situation where there would be no new obligations for the political parties. Senator Dalphond then suggested that it would be better to move forward with an imperfect system than to settle for no system at all.
I agree with him, but the effect of a sunset clause is exactly the same when the sunset period expires. If, in three years, we adopt this sunset clause and no legislative changes are made, we will be putting Canadians in a situation that is just as vulnerable as the one they would have been in had we accepted Senator Clement’s proposed amendment. The sunset clause has only one purpose: to postpone a situation that we rejected by defeating Senator Clement’s proposed amendment.
On the question of restraint and reserve, which must prevail in the Senate, I will conclude with the following statement. With respect, restraint in such a context is not a weakness, but the mature expression of a bicameral system that respects democracy and institutional balance, which must be part of the structuring principles of Canada’s constitutional architecture: respect for the House of Commons, for unanimous votes, and for those who have a legitimate mandate to represent Canadians.
I hope that none of the comments made in this chamber will be interpreted as disrespectful toward the elected members of the House of Commons. Each of them, regardless of the party they represent, had the courage to stand before Canadians and ask for their trust. Regardless of the party they represent, the Canadians who are MPs in the House of Commons have been given a mandate to represent their constituents. I would disagree with any suggestion that they are not doing an adequate job, that they do not have the interests of Canadians at heart and that they do not care about protecting the rights of Canadians. I sincerely believe, honourable senators, that the members of the House of Commons have the interests of Canadians at heart just as much as members of the Senate do when making a decision.
Tonight we must decide whether to show the restraint needed to respect the delicate balance of Canada’s parliamentary system, where this chamber of sober second thought must sometimes yield to the democratic will expressed unanimously by the elected members of the House of Commons.
Thank you.
Would Senator Moreau take a question?
With pleasure.
Senator Moreau, I don’t know if you intended this, but I have to say that as someone who supports amending this act, I feel chastised by you for our engaging in a process of doing the best we can with the bill that is before us.
My question is: Are there any amendments the Senate could bring that you would consider to be acceptable and, therefore, respectful of our colleagues in the other place? Or do we just accept whatever is brought here?
I believe that the idea is not to muzzle the Senate. The idea is to determine where the Senate’s restraint should apply. Senator Harder explained and outlined, citing former members of the Senate, the importance and existence of this restraint. Since it exists, we need to know how this delicate balance should be maintained.
One of my duties in the Senate, which I try to fulfill very humbly, is not to silence senators, but rather to convey the message to the House of Commons. When the House of Commons unanimously says that these are the provisions it is prepared to endorse, then it is not about political parties. It is about the House of Commons, an integral part of the Parliament of Canada, of which the Senate is a part, that has spoken unanimously on legislation to which only members of the House of Commons are subject. Why would the Senate not accept the unanimous view of elected members on the method of election that should apply to them? That is the position of the government and the position of the other parties represented in the House of Commons.
That said, I accept with great humility and openness the comments that have been made, but we already know the position of the House of Commons on the amendments that have been proposed this evening. Essentially, that is my message.
Senator Moreau, just so I clearly understand your primary message here: Is it that if anything goes through the other place unanimously, then this place is obliged to take whatever comes here after a unanimous vote? Is that your position?
That is not my position. We’re talking about the Canada Elections Act. It doesn’t have the same weight as the Constitution, but it carries on a parliamentary tradition that has generally been respected in Canada. It is not amended unless there is broad consensus in the House of Commons. What greater consensus could anyone ask for with this particular piece of legislation than a unanimous vote by the members of the House of Commons? That is my position. That doesn’t mean that a majority vote in the House of Commons prevents the Senate from acting; rather, I believe that we are dealing with specific legislation that applies only to members of the other place.
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the “nays” have it.
Do we have agreement on a bell?
