Senator Challenges "Loyal Institutionalists" and Legitimacy of Election Law Privacy Amendments
Senator Paul Prosper is one of several who opposed or questioned accepting the House of Common's rejection of the Senate's proposal for a three-year sunset clause to the election law privacy aspects of Bill C-4. He began by pointing out that in the Senate Committee's study of the amendments to the Canada Elections Act in Bill C-4, senators examined questions such as "What is our role?" and "What is our constitutional duty?"
He noted that Liberal Leader of the Government in the House of Commons Steven MacKinnon has been telling the media that the role of the Senate on election law matters should be to leave it to the House of Commons. Meanwhile he did not even speak about how Bill C-4 would amend the Canada Elections Act even though he is the minister responsible for the legislation.
Prosper went on to comment on the refusal of the political parties in the House of Commons to enact legislation that would subject them to privacy laws. He stated, "I would also say, as a lawyer, that if the judge, prosecution and defence counsel in a case all have a vested interest in a certain outcome, they would all be in conflict. In this case, every elected member of Parliament belongs to a political party affected by this bill. These political parties have made it very clear that these are the changes they want."
"At times," he concluded, "there are moments when an unelected chamber not relying on a political party for nominations, electoral support and war chests must weigh in. Yes, Canada is a democracy, so there are notions of restraint and deference to the elected house built into our role, but this restraint must have limits."
Quoting from writings on the Senate's role, Prosper argued that insistence on Senate amendments "should be reserved for relatively rare cases where the issue is of special importance related to our constitutional role, where we are prepared to lead a serious fight and see its completion, when a significant part of public opinion is or could be on our side, although there could be exceptions, and where there are realistic prospects of convincing or forcing the government to change its mind."
"This is precisely the moment when sober second thought of an independent house is necessary," he said. "Election by plurality should not allow the major political parties to go over the heads of the public will and the public interest."
"This is a time to show how an unelected and independent Senate can protect the interests of Canadians," he added.
He told the Senators: "If we want to be treated as equal and assert ourselves, does it strengthen our case to simply be deferential while naming it 'self-restraint' when the Senate is, as we have so thoroughly debated here, uniquely positioned to meet this moment?"
Addressing the matter at hand, Prosper said: "It's important to be clear what's at stake when we are dealing with the privacy rights of Canadians. With the advent of social media, privacy rights have faced a reckoning in recent years because we have realized how fundamentally valuable our personal information is. When our behavioural patterns and preferences can be weaponized with algorithms to change our beliefs and behaviour, we lose our personal and political agency.
"The beneficiaries of this power are now calling on us to let them regulate themselves by allowing them to write their own privacy policies, leaving us with a potential patchwork of policies that have little to no minimum requirements or guardrails."
Prosper expressed unhappiness with the way in which the government has repeatedly ignored the Senate when it identifies issues "not contemplated because they were not studied" in the House with "platitudes that they will do something later on -- later, but not now."
"Time and time again," he said, "there has been radio silence from the government after we acquiesce. We hold firm in our beliefs until the eventual letter or promise is relayed and, once again, the loyal institutionalists call for restraint before we defer. I ask my colleagues: Is this the role we are meant to play? That is why, on principle, I will insist on our amendment, and I will vote to that effect.
Wela'lioq. Thank you."
This article was published in
Volume 56 Number 3 - March-April, 2026
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/TML2026/Articles/M56033.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca