The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: I have a question, a point of clarification. It may be a point of order. I have the distinct recollection that yesterday when I was not able to complete my question, you said very clearly that you were going to recognize me today and give me the opportunity to do that. I would very much appreciate knowing why that did not happen.

I need to say that I’m a non-affiliated senator. The system that operates in this chamber discriminates against me. It limits my opportunities to speak, so it was very precious to me yesterday when it seemed that you were going to be fair and let me speak today and continue my question. I would really like to understand why that did not happen.

The Hon. the Speaker: That was just a point of clarification. I don’t believe it’s a point of order. I had the choice. I was clarifying the position, so I will call upon the Orders of the Day.

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 8, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning the cost implications of Bill C-13.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 18, 2023, by the Honourable Senator Wells, concerning a Canadian airline crew detained abroad.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on June 8, 2022)

On March 1st, 2022, the Minister for Official Languages and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency tabled Bill C-13 (An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts) in the House of Commons. Bill C-13 is still currently under study by parliamentary committees.

On March 18, 2022, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) sent a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (PCH), requesting information on the direct and indirect expenditures related to the administration of Bill C-13 as well as related tax expenditures, among others.

On April 6, 2022, the Deputy Minister of PCH, provided a response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer regarding his questions about the costs of Bill C-13. Seeing as a copy of the response from PCH would be posted on the PBO’s website, the department was advised to not include, in the response letter, any information that is confidential or still under the seal of Cabinet. Due to an administrative error, additional confidential information was not sent in a timely matter. When this error was discovered, the department immediately corrected this mistake and provided the additional information.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable David M. Wells on May 18, 2023)

Transport Canada takes all allegations of incidents involving aviation safety and security seriously. The responsibility for aviation security and investigation for incidents at the Punta Cana International Airport rests with the Dominican Republic.

Transport Canada has investigated within the scope of its authorities by reviewing details of the incident provided by both Pivot Airlines and Dominican authorities. It has assessed whether there were compliance issues in the Dominican Republic with international aviation security standards and conducted an on-site aviation security assessment of the Punta Cana airport. This assessment included the area where the incident occurred, which Transport Canada would not normally be allowed to see since it is a private terminal.

Dominican authorities appear to have taken the necessary steps to address possible vulnerabilities. During Transport Canada’s on-site assessment, no major security issues were discovered. Transport Canada continues to collaborate with authorities to encourage the continuous improvement of aviation security.

No further review of this issue is planned by Transport Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator McPhedran. Yes, I was even reminded today that I had said that yesterday. I must admit that a lot of questions being asked have very long preambles. I had a list of people, and I had you on the list after Senator Housakos. I had other senators also who asked to be added to the list, and I tried to respect the order that has been given to me. That is my explanation, and I will have you on the list. I have other senators whom I didn’t recognize who were on the list also. So I will keep that in mind.

Yes, I had yesterday mentioned that, but, again, I’m trying to be respectful of the groups and also the non-affiliated senators.

Just a reminder, please keep your preambles short and get to the question as soon as possible so we have more time for more senators to ask questions.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, let me say, first of all, I’m speaking as a senator from Alberta and not in my capacity in any way as the leader of the Canadian Senators Group. I rise to speak to Bill C-47, known as the budget implementation act. I would suggest that it should probably be renamed the “budget implementation and a bunch of other stuff act,” but we’ll leave it where it is.

This is my eleventh year here and the eleventh June when I have seen a budget implementation act come through.

I want to make my comments today really around three things, first of all, the growing problem, as I see it, of omnibus legislation on a wide range of issues, unrelated to the actual implementation of a budget.

I want to highlight what I believe is one of the most egregious items that would stand as an example of the growing problem which we have in this bill that we are being asked to pass today.

Finally, I will propose a simple amendment that would provide a vehicle for us to improve this legislation, which I believe is our job, as always.

I’ll start with the budget implementation problem that I believe we have. Page 30 of the Liberal 2015 electoral platform states:

Stephen Harper has . . . used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

I believe it’s as true today as it was then that this is an undemocratic process, at its worst; at its best, I think it adds efficiency.

Nonetheless, that was a platform of fresh ideas and new ways of doing things. I believe it was brought forward with the best of intentions.

A few months after Parliament reconvened with a new government, the first budget implementation act under the Liberal government was proposed, and it ran to 179 pages, which was seven pages longer than the egregious last budget implementation act of the Harper government. We didn’t start out very well on the fresh and good idea of limiting omnibus budget bills. We now know that we are over 400 pages — for the last six or seven budget implementation acts that have been presented, we’ve reached up to 800 pages, in one case.

Colleagues, a budget implementation act, in its absolute purest form, should be a list of required legislative items that are tied to the spending and the revenue lines in a budget. Much of this budget implementation act does, in fact, do that. But budget implementation acts now — and going back many years — contain a litany of legislative items that are unrelated to the actual budget, but have been placed in the bill for convenience, efficiency or time sensitivity.

Sometimes — and I worry it is happening more frequently now — items are also stuffed into the budget implementation act for the purpose of avoiding proper scrutiny. I think that should concern us all.

My wife and I enjoyed the Netflix show called “The Crown.” I don’t know how many of you saw it; I recommend it if you haven’t. In the opening episode, a dying King George has the young mother and bride Elizabeth — the soon-to-be queen — in his study because he knows he’s dying, and he needs to start schooling her on the practical elements of being the monarch. In that episode, and in that particular scene, he’s there with the red box in his study. The red box has all of the papers that the king is supposed to read regarding what is happening in the government. He explains that to Elizabeth. He said, “Here is a very important thing to do.” He lifts up the box’s lid, takes all of the papers out and turns them upside down. He said, “What they don’t want me to see is on the bottom.”

That brings me to Division 39 of our budget implementation act. It is, in fact, on the bottom. It is on page 409, and it is the last division in the budget implementation act.

It deals with the privacy laws that apply to federal political parties. Essentially, up until 2018, federal political parties were exempt from privacy legislation. In 2018, the government passed legislation that required federal political parties to develop and adopt a formal privacy policy. They never said what had to be in it. They never said there had to be any consequences. They just had to have one — that is the legislation that exists today.

In 2018, when they included that tiny provision — that forced political parties to have a privacy policy — it was proclaimed by the minister as the first step in the protection of privacy for citizens.

Five years later, nothing has changed. As far as I can tell — in the research that my office and I did — there is not a single other organization in this country that is not subject to privacy laws except for federal political parties.

What did we get in this bill? It’s interesting — we got nothing. If you read it, we have a declaration that said that what exists is a uniform, exclusive and complete regime to protect citizens’ privacy in regard to political parties. That’s all it said. It didn’t provide for anything other than that — there were no details; there was nothing.

All we have at this moment are those words that mean exactly nothing.

Some would suggest — and I think Senator Loffreda mentioned this — that the declaration sets the stage for future legislation, just like the first step five years ago set the stage for future changes. In fact, Senator Loffreda, in his second-reading speech, said the following when talking about the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee that studied this particular provision:

In its report, the committee reminds us, “The amendment creates a framework for a potential future regime. It does not actually establish any such regime.”

He went on to say:

I appreciate some may feel the division is not robust enough and does not go far enough, fast enough. So I would urge the government to make this a priority and not delay any further.

I think that is a fair and optimistic view by a self-proclaimed optimist, and I’m a fan. It’s important to look for the best in people and look for the best of intentions; I believe that way of thinking is my reflex as well.

A more cynical view of this potential division would be that this declaration is meant to be a shield to protect the status quo — where political parties operate with impunity, while provincial privacy commissioners are being bombarded with complaints because there is nobody else to complain to. They are looking to take action. In fact, in one province, they have begun a court challenge.

As cynical as it might be, some are of the view — and it was mentioned at committee, but it might not have been on the record — that there is no intention to change. There is simply the intention to place the shield here that would prevent the provinces from acting on behalf of the citizens of their own province in the vacuum that exists right now regarding accountability.

So my amendment, which I will get to in a few minutes, builds on the work and the words of our committees and simply provides a timeline in which this “new regime” must be developed and brought forward. It gives two years, whereupon if nothing is done, then this shield — this fig leaf — drops away.

If optimists are right, two years is plenty of time to get the proper legislation in place. If the cynics are right, then this shield — the fig leaf — to protect the status quo and keep other regulators away would drop off and allow provincial regulators to again take up the case on behalf of their citizens who believe that they have been wronged by political parties and their data and their privacy. That’s it. It’s that simple for me.

This isn’t the only division in the budget implementation act that is troublesome. There was a host of items. We’re going to change a bunch of items in the Criminal Code. There are other items that need proper scrutiny and were put in this bill for reasons that were not always explained. In fact, I asked Minister Lametti a question about this bill, and he had an interesting comment. It was quick and off-the-cuff, but he said that he doesn’t always like what goes into a budget implementation act, and he believes sometimes that they should be full bills, but it’s not always his decision, so fair enough.

Before I read my amendment, let me just say a couple more things. I think we have a growing problem, and I think it is the Senate’s problem. Clearly, the evidence shows that we are suffering not just through financial inflation in Canada, but our budget implementation is also suffering from the same inflation — 172 pages in 2015 to 430 pages today. I believe if we don’t do something, someday we will see more situations where governments are using both good and undesirable purposes in their budget implementation acts.

So, someday — maybe it isn’t today — we’re going to have to do something about it. If this government serves its full term, and there is a deal, as we know, on confidence and support, we’ll have two more budget implementation acts, one in 2024 and again in June 2025. We should reflect between now and then and prepare to better manage these — to actually manage rather than react — rather than have I don’t know how many times by how many people in how many reports we’ve said that there were items in this bill that were inappropriate to be in this bill, yet we’re not going to do anything about it today. I’m going to propose something. I expect to lose spectacularly. That’s okay. We’re all going to get a chance to stand and begin our reflection on what we need to do here.

I believe for the utility and the sustainability of the Senate, this is an issue that we need to tackle. We need to communicate what we want to do appropriately with the House of Commons going forward, and we need to do this before the government changes. Imagine if we delay and all of a sudden we all get the religion when the government that didn’t appoint us is now in power and we decide we’re going to do something like this; we’ll look like a bunch of hypocrites. So let’s think about it between now and next year, and let’s figure out how we deal with this issue between us and the House of Commons.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Would the senator take a question? Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your remarks. You alluded in the early part of your remarks to the promise to amend the standing orders. Are you aware that the standing orders in the House have, in fact, been amended on several occasions consistent with the electoral promise of 2015? Can you provide us with a short summary of those changes to the standing orders?

The Hon. the Speaker: In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Osler:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

Hon. Scott Tannas: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-47 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a) on page 402, by adding the following after line 5:

(b) on page 402, by adding the following after line 10:

Hon. Leo Housakos: Would Senator Tannas take a question?

Hon. Pat Duncan: Senator Tannas, will you accept a question?

Hon. Denise Batters: Would Senator Tannas take a question?

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Would you take a question, please, Senator Tannas?

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Senator Tannas, the second anniversary, which is the time frame for the sunset clause — what’s your rationale for that? As you know, governments move slowly, and now you’ve got a lot of political parties getting involved. As well, there’s an election in 2025, so it seems the deadline will be maybe just before the next election. Was that part of your rationale? I’d just like to know why you picked two years and not three years.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, as sponsor of the bill, it will come as no surprise that I rise to speak against the amendment proposed by Senator Tannas. I’m happy to have more time to speak to Bill C-47, but I wish it was under different circumstances.

Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your comments. There is proof that optimists do live longer, happier lives. By the way, I loved “The Crown.” My wife, Angelina, and I loved it. In my business, though, we had no box. The priority was always on top.

Allow me to say a few words on why I oppose this amendment. First, as we all know, budgets are expressions of the policy priorities of the government of the day, and budget bills implement, in part, some of those priorities. By way of background information, the measure that appears in Division 39 of Part 4 of Bill C-47 is clearly listed on page 254 in annex 3 of the 2023 budget book. It says this:

. . . the government proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to establish a uniform federal approach in respect of federal political parties’ collection, use, and disclosure of personal information in a manner that overrides overlapping provincial legislation.

I think most of us would agree — as did two of our committees through their reports — that changes to the Canada Elections Act probably deserves its own stand-alone legislation. I raised that issue in my speech yesterday.

Nevertheless, changes to the Canada Elections Act were announced in the budget, and I believe we must respect the government’s will. It is not inappropriate for these amendments to appear in the budget implementation act. In fact, Speaker Rota in the other place also judged that this was sufficient to meet the definition in their Standing Orders that this was germane to Budget 2023, and he did not designate the item for a separate vote during the marathon of amendments held last week.

Let me speak now to the policy rationale behind this measure. Federal political parties are key actors in a healthy democracy and help voters make informed choices through their engagement. Effective engagement requires federal political parties to collect a significant amount and variety of personal information. Canadians rightfully expect that all federal political parties will protect their personal information when it comes to the activities they undertake, such as canvassing, fundraising and polling.

The amendments in Division 39 seek to achieve two main objectives. First, they will empower the government with the authority to establish a uniform federal approach in respect of federal political parties’ collection, use, disclosure and retention of personal information.

Second, they will ensure that all federal political parties have consistent and appropriate national safeguards in place to protect the personal information of Canadians, which further contributes to broader efforts to protect Canada’s democracy.

This commitment is informed by an evolving privacy landscape, which Senator Colin Deacon skilfully addressed in his second-reading speech — thank you, Senator Deacon. It’s also informed by calls from subject-matter experts and growing expectations from Canadians with respect to the protection of their personal information. This measure dovetails with the spring 2022 ruling of British Columbia’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, which applied B.C.’s privacy legislation to include federal political parties. This creates an uneven playing field across jurisdictions, and could result in federal political parties having to handle data differently in every single provincial and territorial jurisdiction. This is obviously not tenable, and could restrict the ability of volunteers, elected officials and parties to engage with Canadians.

It’s also worth noting that the ruling of the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner is being challenged by all three major federal political parties represented in the other place: the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, and the New Democratic Party of Canada. That consensus amongst parties demonstrates the importance of this measure.

Honourable senators, you may recall that in 2018, Parliament previously set out an exclusive, complete and uniform set of rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by federal political parties. Parties are required to establish and comply with privacy policies that are regulated by the Canada Elections Act. There are six specific elements that parties must adhere to, including the type of information they collect, how they collect it and, perhaps most importantly, how they protect it. Employees of political parties must also be trained if they have access to personal information under the party’s control. This legislation confirms that it has always been the intention of the Canada Elections Act that voters across Canada benefit from the same set of privacy rules in federal elections, and that federal parties are not subject to provincial legislation.

It is worth pointing out that the matter before us was debated in the other place. The government’s intention, as I have described it, was confirmed in an intervention from the parliamentary secretary to the Associate Minister of Finance on June 7, when she said:

The changes that this bill makes to the Canada Elections Act confirm that Parliament has always intended that the Canada Elections Act should regulate uniformly, exclusively and comprehensively the federal political parties with respect to privacy.

Honourable senators, I’m told that the government is not stopping here. As set out in Bill C-47, the government has signalled and is committed to bringing forward additional legislative measures to ensure a uniform federal approach regarding the federal political parties’ collection, use and protection of personal information. This will further build trust in our democracy and increase protections of Canadians’ personal information.

Senator Tannas’s amendment suggests that this ought to happen within two years. I appreciate where he’s coming from — and I’m a fan, too, by the way — but I think an amendment is unnecessary. In fact, in my second-reading speech, I recognized that some senators may feel that this division is not robust enough, and does not go far enough fast enough. I even urged the government to make this a priority and not delay any further. Based on the government’s statements, I am confident that this will happen soon.

It is also a priority item for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. As per his mandate letter, he’s been asked to consider the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, which includes recommendations on protecting electors’ privacy and enhancing their confidence in how political parties manage their personal information.

I’ve been told that the government intends to bring legislative amendments on the subject as soon as possible. I am hopeful and, dare I say, confident that the framework for the future regime that Bill C-47 is proposing will soon see the light of day.

Legislation is not a static process. It’s not static at all; it’s dynamic. Trust, as I’ve always said, is the currency of every relationship. I think it was President Reagan who said, “Trust, but verify.”

We can always resist and revisit this issue in the future. There is nothing that impedes us from looking at this in the future, if it is not done. I feel that it’s not necessary at this point in time for many reasons. For the sake of brevity, you’ve all heard what it entails to amend a budget bill. I appreciate that the amendment before us would basically force the government to achieve concrete and permanent results within two years, but I think it would be inappropriate to put a legislative deadline on such an important matter. The government needs to get this right.

You referred to “The Crown,” Senator Tannas — in our business, we have to get it right. When someone would say that a client needs something, I would say this — and I’ve said it many times: “The client is going to be with us for a long time. We’re going to live with this for a long time. Let’s get it right.” An extra day won’t make a difference; an extra two days won’t make a difference; and an extra year won’t make a difference. We have to get this right, so I don’t believe a deadline is appropriate.

As honourable senators consider Senator Tannas’s amendment, I also want to point out, as we enter our final sitting week, or weeks — it could be weeks — the knock-on effects of an amendment to the budget implementation act could further delay its passage. I’m not suggesting that senators do not have the legislative authority to amend budget bills, but I am concerned that an amendment could delay the implementation of other measures contained in the bill. For instance, I think of the automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, which seeks to deliver advance payments to lower-income Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living — we talk about inflation and the cost of living so often here. I will leave that for your consideration.

Once again, I thank senators for their attention, and I would humbly urge you all to vote against the amendment of Senator Tannas. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[Translation]

Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator Tannas, would you take another question? My question may overlap slightly with Senator Batters’ question, but I wanted to very specifically focus on this.

When Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer, appeared at committee, he did express frustration about changes to the Canada Elections Act appearing in this bill. You’re focusing on the privacy element. I wanted to ask you specifically: Why didn’t you just simply remove this clause related to the Canada Elections Act? Why didn’t you amend it so that it be removed from this bill if, in fact, one of the important issues here is changes to this act appearing in this bill? Why didn’t you suggest, “Let’s take this out of this bill altogether because it doesn’t belong here” instead?

Thank you.