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. Elizabeth Marshall: Would Senator Tannas take another question?

Hon. Clément Gignac: Would you take a question?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, based on my second reading speech — where I offered no solutions whatsoever — you won’t be very surprised that I am going to speak in favour of Senator Tannas’s amendment.

Colleagues, I recognize that it’s rare for the Senate to amend the budget implementation act, as it should be. Some have said that amending the budget implementation act may put the Senate’s reputation at risk. I completely disagree under these circumstances and with this specific issue.

In 2017, as senators debated whether to hive off a portion of the budget bill for further study and debate, the Prime Minister offered that “it’s important to understand that the House of Commons has the authority when it comes to budgetary matters.”

I agree fully. I expect most, if not all, of us agree as it relates to “budgetary matters.” The proposed change to the Canada Elections Act in Division 39, on the last page of a budget bill, is not a budgetary matter. Typically, a budget bill is about giving Canadians financial support in challenging times, about providing access to new rights and opportunities, like affordable childcare or investing in our future. Budget bills are not about undermining a Canadian voter’s right to privacy — an issue that our three major political parties have refused to act on for more than a decade.

So let’s talk about that issue. To Senator Duncan’s question to Senator Tannas, according to a 2021 Elections Canada survey of voters, 96% of Canadians agreed that laws should regulate how political parties collect and use Canadians’ personal information.

This is not the case today. These political parties self-regulate. This remains the case because the organizational leadership of the Liberal, Conservative and NDP parties have demonstrated that they cannot get past — as far as I’m concerned — their conflicts of interest as it relates to this issue. It’s ironic that the 96% of voters who want legal privacy protections to be extended to political parties can now only look to the unelected Senate for help. I’m of the opinion that we offer a beacon of hope, simply because 80% of us are not whipped by partisan leadership and can look at this issue independently. This is our time to provide that counterbalance to the elected House of Commons, where less than 1% of elected members are independent of the partisan whip.

Colleagues, the Prime Minister made one request of me when he appointed me to the Senate, and that was to challenge “the government” — whichever government is in power.

I try to do so as collegially and responsibly as possible. I have never, to this point, voted against a budget implementation bill, and I doubt that I will do it this time, but I am in favour of this amendment.

I chatted with most of you about the Prime Minister’s request, and I understand that he made a similar request of many, if not all, of his appointees. We’re independent. We’re not whipped. This is a luxury in Ottawa. It’s also a profound responsibility. Few have had this luxury and responsibility in the history of Canada. Well, now is our moment to fulfill that responsibility. This is why I support Senator Tannas’s amendment. It gives the political parties two years to implement new legislation that actually creates:

 . . . 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.

It is a firm and clear response that I believe, Senator Shugart, shows restraint.

The only ones who’ve been denying Canadians access to these privacy protections are the individuals and organizations that lead the Conservative, NDP and Liberal parties. But they’re conflicted in this debate, and their actions have proven that they’re serving their own political interests and clearly not the wishes or interests of Canadian voters.

The NDP, Liberals and Conservatives have worked in concert for more than a decade, seemingly doing everything in their power to not give Canadians privacy protections as it relates to political party data, despite the wishes of 96% of voters. For more than a decade, Canada’s three main political parties have ignored the two officers of parliament responsible for these issues. The Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer have repeatedly called for legislative, or even voluntary, protections to be put in place, but to no avail. They’ve ignored the strong and compelling recommendations from the House of Commons Ethics Committee report, specifically called Democracy Under Threat: Risks and Solutions in the Era of Disinformation and Data Monopoly. This demonstrates that the political party leadership is even willing to ignore the voices of elected MPs from their own parties. And they’ve joined forces to thwart the efforts of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C. by challenging him in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to stop him from trying to protect B.C. voters’ privacy in the perpetual absence of federal protections.

As I said in my second-reading speech on Bill C-47, it’s remarkable and deeply disturbing that this is one issue that unites Liberals, Conservatives and NDP in these hyper-partisan times. It is a sad irony that, instead of uniting to address the threat of foreign interference — the number-one political issue of 2023 — they are united in their desire to deny Canadian voters privacy protections that almost every Canadian voter says they want.

But why are privacy protections important in the first place? Large databases have been said to be like gold. True, they can have enormous value. However, the architect behind much of Australia’s work to develop and apply their consumer data rights, my friend Scott Farrell, describes it differently. He sees data as being like uranium because it’s both extremely powerful and dangerous, and it has a long half-life. That’s because data can continue to deliver harms for a long time if not handled very carefully.

Access to large amounts of detailed personal data enables political parties to micro-target their political messaging. This personal data allows them to target and speak compellingly to the interests of increasingly narrow slices of our voting population to motivate those voters to donate and get out to vote, as Senator Tannas alluded to.

Consequently, our political parties and their messaging increasingly focus on the issues that divide Canadians, not the issues that unite us. As I mentioned, political party organizers now openly admit that they choose their voters; voters no longer choose their political parties. This is equivalent, in my mind, to digital gerrymandering.

Currently, our political parties are not required to secure any voter consent, regardless of the data they gather. They do not need to be transparent in terms of the data they have or how it’s used. They are not required to provide any guardrails, meaning nothing is out of bounds, and they’re not accountable to an appropriate governance body. There is no authority to which voters can complain or who can investigate abuses. There are no protections. All of the evidence, including Division 39 in the BIA, suggests that our political parties may be very happy to keep it that way.

As I said at second reading, these databases represent a powerful target for foreign adversaries who intend to interfere in our democracy. If a political party is hit by a cyberattack, they have no obligation to report that breach to anyone. A decade of evidence suggests that this status quo will continue unless the Senate rises to the challenge and adopts Senator Tannas’s amendment.

One of the very first debates that I heard when I was appointed to this chamber was by the Honourable André Pratte, a dearly missed former colleague for so many of us. He described four criteria that justify the Senate’s actions if it were to continue pushing to amend a government bill. In that situation, he was speaking to the message back from the House related to Bill C-45, the Cannabis Act. Senator Pratte offered that the Senate should insist on an amendment in relatively rare cases where: one, the issue is of special importance related to our constitutional role; two, where we are prepared to lead a serious fight and see it to its completion; three, where a significant part of public opinion is on our side; and, four, where there are realistic prospects of convincing or forcing the government to change its mind. These four points have helped me as I considered Senator Tannas’s amendment and, if adopted, our potential response to the government if they were to reject this reasonable amendment.

I firmly believe that it was entirely inappropriate to include Division 39 in this budget bill. Regardless, Senator Tannas’s amendment gives the Conservative, Liberal and NDP party leadership what they want, and it gives us the confidence that Canadians’ privacy rights will ultimately be protected.

This amendment also allows us to fulfill each of Senator Pratte’s criteria. It provides a counterbalance to the whipped House of Commons where the leadership of the political parties are conflicted, denying Canadian voters their fundamental right to privacy. I would argue that it fulfills the distinct constitutional role of the unelected Senate while respecting the House of Commons’ ultimate authority on budget matters. It empowers us to fulfill the objective of the serious fight that has been led by the officers of Parliament who are responsible for these issues and by the House Ethics Committee who saw and warned that the status quo presents threats and risks to our democracy and, finally, by a provincial privacy commissioner who has been trying to protect the privacy of B.C. voters when federal political parties refused to do so voluntarily.

These collective efforts have been rebuffed for more than a decade by the political party leadership that has a blatant conflict of interest. It also responds to the public’s conviction — not just its opinion, its conviction — as 96% of Canadians want political parties to provide legal privacy protections. The last 10 years have clearly demonstrated that if Canadians are to get those privacy protections, the whipped House of Commons will not lead the way. Only independent senators can. It is up to us, colleagues.

And finally, Senator Tannas’ amendment provides a realistic prospect of convincing the government to change its mind. It gives the NDP, Conservatives and Liberals what they want, as long as they deliver what is also promised in Division 39. If a complete national privacy regime is implemented within 24 months, then they get to keep the change to the Canada Elections Act that makes that federal privacy regime exclusive.

I’m sure that the irony of this situation is not lost on any of us — the fact that an unelected Senate might stand firm to protect the foundation of our democratically elected House of Commons. I know that voting in favour of this amendment might be disruptive, but it’s our responsibility to look out for the rights of Canadians. Only the Senate can finally bring certainty to the 96% of Canadians who want legal political party privacy protections.

For me, the question is clear. If you agree with the 96% of Canadians that laws should regulate how political parties collect and use Canadians’ personal information, then this is the moment to stand firmly behind and in favour of Senator Tannas’ amendment. If we choose to stand firm, which I desperately hope we will, I think the Senate will have done something for which we can be incredibly proud and for which Canadians will someday be thankful. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Ian Shugart: Honourable senators, I just want to put a few points fairly briefly on the record. The first point is that I completely agree with my friend, our colleague Senator Tannas. I agree wholeheartedly with the points that he has made about omnibus legislation, and I’m afraid I also agree with his prediction about the fate of the amendment.

I said yesterday that I’m having a little bit of a challenge in moving from the executive to the legislative branch. Today I find it a great deal easier. This is a practice that has been carried out by governments of both parties, and there is a great danger that, because it is a bipartisan practice, it becomes acceptable and a way of doing business. But I would argue that bad behaviour does not constitute convention, and this is bad behaviour.

I will say on the amendment that I think, while it is creative and while I agree with the points that you made, Senator Deacon, in your comments, or most of them — it’s not an area that I’m sufficiently familiar with — but in principle, I agree that we have to come to deal with this issue of privacy and the regimes under which political parties are governed.

My own view in relation to the roles of the two chambers is that to pass this amendment now, at this stage in the process and in relation to the larger picture, would be disproportionate. On that basis, I personally would respectfully vote against the amendment.

Let me turn my attention to what we should do in the alternative, because I think we should not stop there. I think we should address this issue of omnibus legislation. Notwithstanding the rulings of the Speaker in the other place, I don’t believe it does go far enough in addressing what is at issue here. I think that ruling is tantamount to saying that this is beyond question because it was written in the budget document. The issue is: Should it ever have been put in the budget document? My response to that in this particular case is, “No.”

My view is that budgets relate to the fiscal and, more broadly, the economic position of the government. Yes, they do constitute the policy position of the government, but to the extent that they are the vehicle for transporting other legislative priorities, the government should be exercising far more caution and principle than it has been. Again, this is a practice of both governments of long standing. It is not a partisan comment in any way.

I would argue this is not just poor governance, restricting, as it does, the ability of parliamentarians to be proper legislators; it verges on being a question of privilege. It’s on that basis that I think we have a right and a responsibility to pick this issue up and carry it forward. I would venture to guess that it is a question of privilege for our colleagues in the other place as well.

I’m going to suggest that we take up this issue. I don’t know exactly by what means. I think some statistical work about what has happened in the recent past would be useful. I think we should have conversations with our colleagues in the other place. I think we should give due warning to the government that we are taking this issue very seriously and this is not just an annual cri de cœur of anxiety about bad practice, but that we want to address it and we want to change it permanently. I think we should do that sooner rather than later. Thank you, senators.

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Would the honourable senator take a question? I would like to ask you if you could help us understand further what you mean by “disproportionate.” Should we vote for this amendment? Please help us understand: disproportionate to what?

Hon. Clément Gignac: Will my colleague accept another question? Thank you, Senator Shugart. We are fortunate to have you here because you provide guidelines. I referred to you in my speech yesterday.

If I read between the lines — and I’ve been in politics in Quebec for a few years — if this amendment had been presented, let’s say, in April or May — not five minutes before midnight like this week, but a month or two months ago — is it possible that you would have been more comfortable voting for it? I tried to read between the lines, and five minutes before midnight is not the best timing, I would say, but at the same time, we have to send a message.

Would your position be different if this had happened a month or two before adjourning for the summer?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Tannas for having provided us an opportunity today to discuss the practice of putting a lot of other things in a budget implementation act, including amendments to various laws with no financial aspect and, of course, even less budgetary aspects, like taxes. Maybe the carbon tax was a budgetary issue; according to the Conservatives, it’s a tax.

This practice that was supported by this Senate in Parliaments must stop. I’m happy to see a change of opinion amongst many of us here today who were there at the time. I really appreciate the fact that they are changing their mind about this type of budget implementation act.

As I was reported to have said, and rightly so, in The Globe and Mail last week, I’m of the view that this practice continued by the current government, despite its promise to do otherwise, is an abuse of parliamentary process, preventing us from fully debating important issues unrelated to the budgetary aspects of the government’s agenda.

The question, then, is this: What shall we do to stop such a practice by Conservative and Liberal governments? What Senator Tannas is proposing is to add a sunset provision on an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Colleagues, the provision in question was proposed by the government without any prior consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer or the Privacy Commissioner, as was said at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. In fact, the amendment is nothing but an attempt to derail legal proceedings pending in B.C. introduced by the provincial Privacy Commissioner against all the federal political parties operating in the province of B.C., excluding the Bloc Québécois. All these parties are united in challenging the authority of the B.C. Privacy Commissioner.

In my view, the logical approach will be to propose to delete the provision, but it seems Senator Tannas proposes to keep it but only for two years. This is not a good provision and was not adopted with prior consultations, but, nevertheless, it should be in force for two years. I don’t really understand the approach.

That said, I think our response to the BIA — the budget implementation act — should be in full exercise of restraint, as was pointed out by Senator Shugart yesterday in his very interesting speech. It was a very good maiden speech, sir, and today’s was another one which was very good. Instead of sending an immediate message to the other place at the eleventh hour, I would prefer the adoption of a strong motion or an amendment to our Rules that will be both published well before their coming into force and well before the next budget.

Instead of a prior warning, what is proposed today is an amendment that would likely create havoc at the eleventh hour before the summer recess. This is not, in my opinion, a wise way to press for change. Accordingly, I will vote against the proposed amendment. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Senator Shugart, thank you for your comments yesterday and today on senatorial restraint and wisdom. This is an important matter. I can already predict — although we do not want to deal in hypotheticals — that next year at the same time we will be having the same conversation, more or less.

Senator Tannas has said, outside of this amendment, he will launch an inquiry. Do you believe that our excellent Senate Committee on National Finance should undertake a study on omnibus bills and all that is good, bad and ugly around them to facilitate a better position for us by the time next June comes around?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Shugart, thank you for your remarks. Just recently here, in response to a question, I believe, you said this was a confidence measure; however, of course, the Senate is not a confidence chamber. In the event that Senator Tannas’ amendment on this issue passed, the government would not fall. This is something that then would be sent over to the House of Commons, which is still sitting as we speak right now. Would you acknowledge that though we’re dealing with a budget implementation act, it is within the power of the Senate to provide an amendment to that?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, let me start by saying how edifying I found this exchange on Senator Tannas’ amendment and how I think it reflects well on this chamber as a place that thinks deeply about important questions. It’s a measure of the quality of Senator Tannas’ amendment, his speech and the speeches of those who have spoken in favour of that amendment that I have to say I agree with so much of what has been said and yet disagree with the amendment and will vote against it. The reason I’m doing so, colleagues, is because, though well intentioned, it is unprincipled. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean that in the sense that it is inconsistent.

You see, colleagues, there are two separate problems that we’re trying to deal with here. The first is that of omnibus bills, which is recurrent and, it would seem, perennial. As Senator Dalphond has mentioned and as Senator Dasko has intimated, the proper solution to an overly broad bill with items that do not properly belong in it is to excise those items from the bill.

The other conundrum we’re working on is the question of privacy in the Canada Elections Act. That is a distinct and separate issue from the omnibus problem.

The way to deal with that issue is to do what the Senate always does — study it carefully, put it through a committee, debate it in second and third reading, talk to constituents and stakeholders and talk amongst ourselves — not to do it in half an hour or 45 minutes at third reading in the Senate Chamber, at the eleventh hour of a parliamentary sitting.

These two objectives are irreconcilable, and for us to try to find a solution that preserves this clause in an omnibus bill simply by tweaking it is to undermine both our principled objection to omnibus bills and our commitment to detailed and careful study of important issues.

I would suggest, dear colleagues, that if we were to go ahead with this amendment, we would be subject to the kind of criticism that says we are — I don’t want to say hypocritical — not consistent in our opposition to omnibus bills, but we’re also going against the very thing that we say we do best, which is to study issues carefully and deliberately and come to conclusions after deliberate consultation and study have been done. Therefore, colleagues, I will be voting against this amendment. Thank you.

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Senator Woo, would you take a question? It has to do with the comment you made when you said that we were talking about tacking on an amendment at the last minute and you mentioned the consequences of adopting that amendment at the last minute. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recently tabled its report in the Senate. Since the tabling of the report, there has been no comment about or mention of this specific section. I think that people have had enough time to bring this to our attention. I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[English]

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Woo, I think I may have missed a little bit here getting the translation, but I believe the exchange you were having with Senator Dasko was about how this issue of removing the Canada Elections Act — or that it’s not an appropriate place to have this provision in a budget implementation act — and I believe there was some discussion to indicate that this hasn’t been discussed in the chamber prior to today.

I just wanted to bring to your attention, Senator Woo, in case you didn’t realize that, actually, is not correct. Senator Loffreda mentioned it in passing in his second reading speech about how the Legal Committee presented a report from our chair, Senator Cotter, which referenced this and Criminal Code amendments that were included in the budget implementation act. We made observations indicating it was not appropriate.

Then, after Senator Loffreda made that remark, I brought that to his attention to say specifically that these Criminal Code provisions and the Canada Elections Act should not be in here.

Do you recognize that perhaps you missed that because this has been a matter that we have raised in debate in this chamber?