Senator Tannas: Absolutely.

Senator Tannas: I’m glad you raised this. It’s a good one that goes to an episode of “The Crown.” The finance minister did not say one word about this in her speech. You’re right; it was in an annex to the budget. It was on page 254 of Annex No. 3 of the budget plan for 2023. It says:

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

That’s what it said. There is not a peep about it in the budget speech, and here we have one paragraph of two sentences in the back.

Yes, the rules have been sufficiently torqued such that all you have to do is stick it somewhere in the volumes of budget documents, and it qualifies as a budget. If I were asking you the question, I would say, “Can you point me to any line item of spending at which this particular division applies?”

Senator Tannas: Thank you, I’ve been thinking about this because I hate people who put problems down and don’t have any solutions.

First, I intend to launch an inquiry where we can get some ideas on the table. My own personal idea is that, at some point, we should send a message that says that the first order of business for a budget implementation act is that we will review it to look for possible items that we believe need more study, more time or should be in a separate bill, and we will carve those out of any future BIAs. That would be something we could do.

If we gave them advance notice, maybe they would consider that. If they didn’t consider that, then we could decide whether we want to follow through with something that we have indicated we would do.

That’s one idea. I think there are a lot of other ideas.

This is part of what Senator Gold has always talked about: that he is the representative of the government in the Senate and he is the representative of the Senate in the government. I think if we spent some time and all made some proposals and discussed what we think and got the conversation going, we could arrive at a consensus here on how to deal with this so that we’re not again having Groundhog Day next June on the budget implementation act.

Senator Tannas: First of all, I think there is. We can hold public hearings if we want. We could figure out which committee needs to go. We can go out on the road and hold some public hearings.

At the end of the day, you can’t blame the political parties. Why would any organization rush headlong into something that is going to bring more accountability and a whole lot more transparency and work, et cetera?

As far as political parties go, I think there are a lot of complicated issues. You knock on somebody’s door, and they tell you something, “I’m going to do this; I hate this” — whatever. Now all of a sudden you’re in possession of information they’ve given, but they don’t know what you’re going to do with it.

These days with technology, you walk down to the bottom of the sidewalk, you key what that person said into your phone and it goes into a database. For all I know — nobody in here knows — it might go to the fundraising arm of the party immediately with a customized letter that says, “We are doing on X and Y” on the thing that person just said they hated. They could sell it — who knows — because they are not required under any law to do anything. They could have had a data leak. We had a data leak. The Green Party had a data leak and voluntarily disclosed it. They didn’t have to because they’re not subject to any law, but they disclosed it anyway. We don’t know if any or all the other parties have had a data leak and didn’t disclose it. That’s the situation.

So I agree with you. This is an issue that maybe a Senate committee could be helpful with. I don’t know, though. I guess that’s for us to decide in the fullness of time.

Senator Tannas: I have made it a habit of supporting government budgets. They’re elected; they’re there. I will continue to do that no matter which government is in power and no matter whether I agree with the spending or not.

I haven’t, frankly, got that far yet. I still have a light in the window that maybe this will pass.

There is so much that is good in this act. I would sure love to be able to vote, having received a message that the government has at least considered an amendment from us, at least received the message that we’ve reached our fill of this and that we need to do something else.

Senator Gold: Honourable senators, it’s my pleasure to rise briefly to speak to Senator Tannas’s amendment.

Colleagues, I strongly urge you not to support this amendment. First, it is unnecessary for all the reasons well outlined by Senator Loffreda.

Let me reinforce Senator Loffreda’s comments as the Government Representative in the Senate. I can indicate formally here, on behalf of the government, that the government will be bringing forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure a uniform federal approach regarding federal political parties’ collection and use of personal and private information. This will go to the core of many of the concerns that senators, and others, have raised around privacy implications and the need to create a robust and effective regime at the national level. When that legislation is brought forward, we in the Senate will have our opportunity, as will our colleagues in the other place, to scrutinize it, debate it and study it in as granular and as detailed a fashion as we choose.

This legislation that the government intends to bring forward will build off the provisions contained in Bill C-47. Given the government’s commitment, including the fact, colleagues, that maintaining the health of Canada’s democracy is an element of the supply and confidence agreement of which we are all aware, I am confident that these proposed legislative changes will be brought forward quickly. Therefore, a sunset window of two years would be unnecessary.

I would also echo, but will not repeat, Senator Loffreda’s reminder of the many important measures that may be at stake should Bill C-47 not pass swiftly.

Second, and to be frank, I also believe that it is a concerning course of action within the context of the Senate’s overall relationship with the other place. Bill C-47 is a matter of confidence in a minority parliament. In putting it to a vote in the other place, the government tested this confidence and put its survival at risk. And the bill passed. In such circumstances, the Senate has customarily — and wisely, I might say — exercised a significant degree of restraint.

There is more as well. When it comes to rules governing elections, we must be circumspect, careful and, indeed, somewhat deferential vis-à-vis the choices made by elected members in the other place. They’re the ones who have to play by the rules and they’re the ones who will be accountable for whether they do play by the rules.

The provisions in Division 39 of Part 4 of this bill, which lay the groundwork for a privacy and data collection regime, were supported by the elected members in the other place, representing the major political parties that they would affect. As our former colleague Senator Dawson said during our debate on Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act:

Well, amendments are always normally considered by this place. As far as elections law, je pense qu’on a une petite gêne.

Honourable colleagues, is it within our power to send back Bill C-47 to the other place, even though it’s a budget bill and a matter of confidence? Yes. Is it within our power to amend laws relating to the electoral process that has been endorsed by the elected members of Parliament? Yes. However, it’s not because one has the power to do it that means it’s advisable to wield it.

The relationship between our two houses of Parliament is crucial for the proper functioning of our democracy. As an appointed body, when we’re dealing with a matter of confidence, a matter that is covered by a budget bill, I believe we must tread lightly, and when we’re dealing with matters related to the electoral process, so too should we tread lightly.

Colleagues, in this session, I feel that the other place has shown tremendous respect and openness to our good work. As some of you may know — certainly those who pay attention — we in the Government Representative Office advocate behind the scenes for the government to accept Senate amendments, for the government to allocate House time for the Senate messages we send over. The government must, in turn, advocate for those so that it will be accepted to the other parties in the House.

Colleagues, this is far from easy. However, despite the minority context in the other place, the government has been able to secure support for Senate amendments from other parties, including the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, which, as you all know, question, if not deny, the very legitimacy of the Senate.

Despite these different viewpoints, Parliament has functioned well. We have sent back amendments on a wide range of initiatives, and the other place has been able to respond before the summer adjournment, often with many amendments accepted. We’ve been able to work constructively, collaboratively and positively with the other place. This week, it looks like the session will end on a positive note, with many bills receiving Royal Assent, with contributions from both chambers. I dare say we have been fostering a very positive form of bicameral collaboration.

When the House rises is still not fully known, although it may be much sooner than we think. It’s been a good session, a collaborative session and one that we in the Senate should be proud of. We should be mindful of the respectful response that our amendments have gotten from the other place, from the government and from other parties.

The course that Senator Tannas is proposing is to send a confidence measure back to a minority House in the very twilight of the session — a proposal that would set us up for a standoff with the other place. This is not the way I wish to end a sitting that has been so fruitful, so collaborative and so successful. Therefore, I will be exercising restraint. I will be voting against the amendment. I urge you to do the same. Thank you.

Senator Tannas: Well, I would tell you I was here before and I’m here now, and the standing orders may have changed. The work product is identical.

Senator Tannas: Senator Woo and I have an understanding. The reason we went this way is that the amendment specifically asks — begs — for a bill to be placed before us to do our study in a full and complete fashion. It preserves what is there and asks that we have a bill. Did you miss that, or am I not catching the nuance?

Senator Tannas: I really wasn’t ready to go that far by deleting things that a government is intending to do. I felt it was better that we try to improve upon it while making a point. I was also thinking of the public. This isn’t on the public’s radar screen, but if it were, they would be hopping mad, and they would expect something to be done.

So deleting it leaves us where we are. I think this, at least, has highlighted it and can continue to highlight it.

That’s the best answer I can give. Thank you.

Senator Tannas: Certainly.

Senator Tannas: Yes.

Senator Housakos: Senator Tannas, we’ve heard this complaint from colleagues of ours for years and years. What action do you recommend we take to finally send a message to the executive branch of government that they should not treat Parliament as nothing more than a rubber stamp?

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:

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. Denise Batters: Would Senator Tannas take a question?

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

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

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

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.