QUESTION PERIOD — Privy Council Office
Democratic Institutions
June 11, 2025
Senator Gold, in the government’s recently introduced Bill C-4 which is focused on affordability measures for Canadians, like tax cuts and home ownership, there is an unrelated section which would shield federal political parties from provincial privacy laws. Not only does it shield federal political parties from being beyond the scope of basically any privacy law in Canada, but it is also retroactive for 25 years. The text of this section was not included in the ways and means motion, nor did the minister mention these changes to the Canada Elections Act when he spoke to this bill in the other place on Friday.
This is very concerning considering the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled against the federal parties by saying they are subject to the provincial privacy commissioners and their rulings in how they use Canadian data.
My question is not on whether this section may be important or not, but why was it tacked onto an unrelated bill that has an urgency to pass? Why can’t it be studied on its own merit?
Thank you for your question.
As you know, if the motion for which I gave notice passes, we will all have the opportunity to ask both the minister and the officials that very question.
This is an important provision that is designed to build further trust in the democratic process. As I’m sure you and your colleagues have read the B.C. court decision and its admonitions to the government to make this happen quickly — though they did not give us a timetable — and if you will recall the debates in this chamber around this issue and a proposed amendment, it will go some distance in explaining why the government felt it was important to get this done at the reasonably earliest opportunity.
More will — and should — be discussed and elaborated upon when the minister is here.
The last time that changes to privacy requirements in the Canada Elections Act went through were when they were tacked onto the budget implementation act in 2023. At that time, you said that the government would bring forward legislation to ensure a uniform approach, which resulted in Bill C-65 which died on the Order Paper. In fact, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also recommended a separate bill for this issue.
Why didn’t the government reintroduce that legislation rather than tacking it onto other unrelated measures?
Again, I encourage this question to be asked of the minister. I’ll remind us of the circumstances in which we ended the last Parliament when simply nothing was able to pass through the House of Commons. I’ll remind us, of course, of the calendar — of which I’m very aware — in which we find ourselves now and the priorities of this government to address the economic matters.
This will be before us in due course.
