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.

Senator Woo: Thank you, Senator Dasko. No, I would not because if making an amendment to the current provision on the Canada Elections Act is already an excess of enthusiasm, I would say that removing that clause altogether would be even more so.

Senator Woo: Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

The point is that we haven’t studied the Canada Elections Act, its implications for privacy and how to craft an appropriate privacy regime for political parties. I think that assertion is accurate.

Senator Woo: If you’re referring to a delay of the vote on the BIA, I think the answer is unequivocally no, for all of the reasons you’ve heard from my colleagues, including Senator Shugart. However, if you’re talking about a delay in the sense of coming up with an alternative approach to deal with the substantive question of privacy in the Canada Elections Act, yes, I agree with that. I don’t know what that approach would be. Someone has talked about a motion, a study or a bill. There could be different options. That I would be in support of.

Senator C. Deacon: Would Senator Woo take a question?

Senator Woo: You bring up another valuable point about why this has not come up sooner. To the extent that we had an opportunity to bring it up earlier and did not, until the last minute, does not reflect so well on us. My principal objection is not so much the last-minute nature of this amendment but the contradictory character, if I can put it that way, of its presentation: on the one hand, accepting the omnibus nature of the bill — and, in a sense, expanding on it by making this amendment — and on the other hand, not fulfilling our duty to, in fact, study this issue carefully before throwing out an amendment at third reading for consideration just a few minutes before a vote.

Senator Woo: It is nevertheless an amendment that was argued extensively by you, Senator Tannas, on the grounds that an omnibus bill is intolerable. You cannot have it both ways, to my mind — well, you can, of course, and if this amendment goes through, you will have your way.

On the one hand, if you say that this item does not belong in the bill — because it’s in annex 3, it’s buried on page 400 or wherever it might be and it has nothing to do with the budget — then the principled approach is to say, “Let’s get rid of it.” But to actually play with it and finesse it is basically going against your argument that omnibus bills should not be tolerated.

I accept your point that you are trying to provide finesse to what was intended in the BIA. However, that is exactly my point: The finesse should be done with a lot more study and consideration rather than thrown on the floor at the last minute.

Senator Woo: Yes, I did. Your question is about the substance of privacy considerations in the Canada Elections Act. The proper way to deal with that as the Senate, as we are reputed to do, is to study that issue in isolation and in its entirety rather than to tack on an amendment to an omnibus bill at the last minute.

I would suggest, Senator Deacon, that whatever favour we may gain with the 96% of Canadians who are pushing for changes, we would lose with an equally large percentage of Canadians who see us as not being principled in our approach to this question.

[Translation]

Senator Woo: Yes, of course.

Senator Woo: Yes.

Senator C. Deacon: Thank you very much. I wish to ask for clarification.

You made excellent comments. I wish we were doing this differently, but the reality is that 96% of Canadians would like to see some legal privacy rights related to political parties. If we pass this bill unamended, there’s nothing; there is intention. I’ve dealt with open banking, digital government and digital identity for four years now and the intention for progress to be made. It’s like the sign in the British pub: “Free beer tomorrow.” If you come back tomorrow, it still says, “Free beer tomorrow.” I learned that the hard way.

My concern is that there is 10 years of evidence that there is no intention. Did you consider that?