House of Commons Tells Senate to Yield to Its Authority on Election Law
On March 12, the House of Commons rejected an amendment from the Senate
to the section of Bill C-4 that strengthens the ways the Canada
Elections Act allows political parties to gather and use Canadians'
personal information without respecting any privacy laws in the country.
As it stood before the Bill C-4 amendments, the Canada Elections Act
authorizes the Chief Electoral Officer to hand over the names, addresses
and unique identification number of every registered elector to
registered political parties, as well as information about who has
voted. This forms the foundation for compiling databases about electors
which the cartel parties use to target the people with their their
data-driven campaigns for votes. The only legal constraint imposed on
the parties is spelled out in the Canada Elections Act; parties must publish
their privacy policies in what is referred to as a self-regulatory
regime. Because political parties fall into a category of organizations
which are said to be neither public bodies nor commercial organizations,
they are exempted from following any of the federal privacy laws and
standards that apply to virtually all other organizations in the
country, such as obtaining informed consent and disclosing what
information they have compiled about an individual, who they have shared
it with and how they are using it.
While this is the case federally, in British Columbia the government
adopted a privacy law -- the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) --
which does not exempt political parties. In 2019, some individuals in BC
used PIPA to file complaints against the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP
because they failed to properly disclose information about the personal
files the parties held about them and the parties collectively launched
a legal challenge arguing that they are not subject to any privacy laws
including PIPA. BC courts disagreed and ruled that PIPA does apply, with
the latest ruling having been issued by BC Supreme Court in May 2024.
The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are pursuing an appeal to reverse
the ruling. While doing so, they also introduced Bill C-4 which
specifically states that federal political parties are not subject to
any provincial privacy laws. It also specifically targets the complaint
before the courts by stating, “For greater certainty, the registered
party, eligible party or person or entity acting on the party’s behalf
cannot be required to provide access to personal information or provide
information relating to personal information under its control or to
correct -- or receive, adjudicate or annotate requests to correct --
personal information or omissions in personal information under its
control.” To boot, these amendments exempting the cartel from
provincial privacy legislation were made retroactive to May 2000.
The Senate amendment was minimal. It proposed a three-year sunset clause with the stated intention of giving the government the opportunity to "develop a more robust and comprehensive uniform privacy regime applicable to federal political parties." After the three years, the exemption from provincial privacy laws would have ended.
In response, Liberal MP Maninder Sidhu presented a motion in the House of Commons to send the Senate a mandate deference message which directs the Senate to yield to the authority of the House of Commons. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May was the sole dissenter but as the motion was adopted "on division," no vote was required. In parliamentary procedure, it means the motion was approved, but not unanimously, and without the need for a formal, recorded vote.
The House of Commons provided three reasons for rejecting the Senate amendment. First, it stated that "Parliament should be the body that decides the rules that govern communication by federal parties with Canadians." This is a totally irrelevant point given that the Senate's amendment did not dispute Parliament's jurisdiction.
Second, the government said it plans to present "additional privacy provisions [...] within this parliamentary session." This promise begs the question, why would the House object to a three-year sunset clause if it has such a plan?
Finally, the government said that Senate should stay out of the House of Commons' business when it comes to electoral matters. The message to the Senate states, "there is a long tradition of the Senate deferring to the House of Commons on amendments to the Canada Elections Act, particularly those which have unanimous support of all recognized parties in the House and which govern the operations of candidates representing political parties seeking election to the House of Commons."
Contrary to this alleged "long tradition," the Senate has amended election law bills on many occasions, such as the Trudeau Liberal government's 2018 Elections Modernization Act. It has also conducted major studies related to the conduct of elections. In 2017-2018, for instance, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee conducted a study entitled Impact of Social Media on Elections and Democracy which examined the use of micro-targeting, a matter directly pertaining to how political parties use personal information. It is clearly only when the Senate interjects in a manner that goes against the interests of the cartel of so-called political parties that the House expects the Senate to stay out of its business.
The Liberal government's suggestion that the Senate is not an integral component part of Parliament and that it has no role to play when the cartel parties in the House of Commons unanimously adopt self-serving election laws is tantamount to a constitutional challenge to Parliament's composition. The government's own website states: "Canada's parliamentary system stems from the British, or 'Westminster,' tradition. Parliament consists of the Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons, and laws are enacted once they are agreed to by all three parts."
The Senate received the message from the House on the same day. Senator Pierre Moreau, Government Representative in the Senate immediately presented a motion declaring, "the Senate do not insist on its amendment with which the House of Commons has disagreed." In defence of his motion, Moreau told the Senators, "the Senate protects constitutional democracy. It must not appear to stand against it when democracy has spoken with one voice. I submit, out of respect for our duty of sober second thought and consideration, that institutional caution demands restraint commensurate with the democratic consensus voiced in the House of Commons."
Leader of the Conservative Opposition in the Senate, Leo Housakos, concurred and suggested that Senators "should be very diligent in picking its spots if we want to remain legitimate." He said that while it is clear in the Constitution that the Senators have the same rights and privileges as members of the House of Commons, "it doesn't take away from the fact that we are appointed."
After a debate in which some Senators challenged the wisdom of the Senate acquiescing to the political parties in the House, the motion was adopted on division and forwarded for Royal Assent, which was pronounced the same day.
To read the brief by the Federal Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne on Bill C-4 click here.
This article was published in
Volume 56 Number 3 - March-April, 2026
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/TML2026/Articles/M56032.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca