DEBATES OF THE SENATE 1st SESSION • 45th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 154 • NUMBER 58 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, March 12, 2026 The Honourable RENÉ CORMIER, Speaker pro tempore

CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue). Publications Centre: Publications@sen.parl.gc.ca Published by the Senate Available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker pro tempore in the chair. Prayers. SENATORS’ STATEMENTS INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY Hon. Paulette Senior: Honourable senators, I rise today on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation to mark International Women’s Day 2026. This year’s theme is “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls.” Amidst a global backlash against gender equality, it is imperative that we speak up and act decisively. Gender equality is a human right. Research demonstrates that it is also closely linked to prosperity, democracy and stability.

Studies have shown that countries with higher levels of gender equality are generally more prosperous, democratic and peaceful. At the same time, we have seen that hard-fought advances in gender equality won over the past decades can be quickly wiped out without much notice. We’ve seen this with Roe v. Wade and subsequent backlash measures south of the border and similar cutbacks in several provincial jurisdictions right here at home. We know that during economic downturns, crises or conflicts of various kinds, governments tend to steer away from commitments to gender equality priorities and investments.

The lesson learned by many of us in the trenches who have fought for these gains is that they are fragile at best and that the struggle for intersectional gender equality is in no way over. Advancing gender equality isn’t just about closing gaps between men and women. People experience different barriers depending on many elements of their identities, including their sexuality, race, gender identity, ability and age. We need to always be thinking of intersectionality and applying that critical Gender-based Analysis Plus lens to initiatives that we take on.

Being an intersectional feminist ally means using our voice and privilege to advocate for inclusion and diversity, as well as supporting women, girls and gender-diverse folks who face barriers and discrimination that we may never face ourselves. In the spirit of the International Women’s Day theme, we can take some key actions.

We can declare gender-based violence and femicide global pandemics and take corresponding action to eradicate them; advocate for sustainable, reliable funding for crisis lines, shelters, safe and affordable housing, public education, prevention programs, trauma-informed training, safety protocols in workspaces, public institutions and the like; resolve to finally close the gender pay gap and provide livable incomes so that no one has to stay in an abusive relationship because of poverty; challenge power imbalance and abuse, domination and aggression; protect women, girls and gender-expansive individuals from AI-facilitated violence and harassment by promoting global standards and adopting legislation that promotes human rights.

Colleagues, we all know that when we support a woman and invest in her future, we are also investing in a family, a community and, ultimately, in Canada. Please join me in celebrating International Women’s Day 2026. Thank you. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. THE LATE GEORGINA FAITH PAPIN Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, yesterday was Georgina Faith Papin’s birthday. You may ask, “Who is Georgina Faith Papin?” She was one of the victims of the notorious Robert “Willie” Pickton. To many, she was another missing and murdered Indigenous woman. To me, she was someone I knew.

During summers in High River, I was a lifeguard at the local swimming pool, where I taught children to swim, a very Canadian picture. Georgina and her brother Ricky were both my students. The Papins had a horrible home life on the reserve due to poverty and abuse. They became foster children in the system, away from their people and their culture. To be frank, the Papin kids never had a chance. They eventually ran away from their foster home and left High River forever. I lost track of Georgina Papin until a friend told me he had seen her name in the newspaper.

She had moved to Vancouver and vanished one night in 1999. She was one of 49 women murdered by that animal Robert Pickton. She lived as a vulnerable person and died a horrible death. Georgina would be 62 years old today. The tragedy of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls is not just a matter of degrees of separation from us. For many, there are no degrees of separation at all. These are people we knew and should have known much longer and in better circumstances. I am not an Indigenous Canadian. I do not carry the burdens or lived experience of our Indigenous brothers and sisters.

But I can remember a sweet child, smiling and happy in a swimming pool on a summer day. I can speak her name and resolve to keep the faith. We can and must do more to protect and uplift vulnerable Indigenous people in Canada. 1789 THE SENATE Thursday, March 12, 2026

Rest in peace, Faith. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Paul Goobie, husband of the Honourable Senator Arnold. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! [Translation] PANDEMIC OBSERV ANCE DAY Hon. Suze Youance: Honourable senators, March 11 is the National Day of Observance for COVID-19 in Canada. I would like to remind everyone of the importance of vigilance and preparedness. In the spirit of the well-known Scout motto, we must always be prepared. •

(1340) Six years and one day ago today, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. This event had a profound impact on our country and continues to have repercussions, since COVID-19 still remains a leading cause of death in Canada. Thanks to the work of our former colleague, the Honourable Marie-Françoise Mégie, March 11 is now a day to pause, reflect and take stock of our preparedness. It is an opportunity to recognize the efforts made, the lessons learned and the progress achieved since 2020.

We also remember the outpouring of solidarity that united communities, institutions and nations. The Canadian Armed Forces, who supported our long-term care facilities and helped deliver essential supplies, demonstrated the strength of our collective capacity to respond to crises. Today, the significant resurgence in diseases such as measles and tuberculosis serves as a forceful reminder of the importance of maintaining high vaccination rates, combatting disinformation and continuing to value evidence and the expertise of our health care professionals.

It’s often said that knowledge is power and forewarned is forearmed. That is just as true for the next pandemic. Let’s hope that our governments will continue to invest in research, innovation and preparedness to ensure the well-being of the 42 million people living in Canada today and that of generations to come. Thank you. [English] VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Aren Larette. She is the guest of the Honourable Senator Ince. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! SENATE REFORM Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, next Wednesday marks the tenth anniversary of the first of the independent Senate appointments made under the then-new appointment process. Senator Petitclerc and Speaker Gagné, I’m sure, will remember the occasion of our subsequent swearing-in on April 12, 2016. We entered a chamber comprised of 42 Conservatives, 26 Liberals and 14 non-affiliated, most of whom had left their previous party caucuses. Of the senators in the chamber at that time, only 17 continue to serve.

Then we all, old and new, began the effort to achieve a less partisan, more independent upper chamber. The government’s approach to reform focused on meaningful, non-constitutional improvements — practical steps that could be taken within our existing constitutional framework. Ten years later, we can see tangible results. A further 93 appointments were made during the Forty-second, Forty-third and Forty-fourth Parliaments.

This chamber has made remarkable progress toward gender parity, now comprising 53% women — an accomplishment that mirrors Canada’s diversity and underscores the government’s dedication to equal representation. We have also seen an increase in Indigenous senators, now representing 10% of this chamber, bringing vital perspectives from First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities to the centre of Parliament. The appointments have also reflected the broader diversity of Canada. Your contributions enrich our discussions and help ensure that national legislation reflects the lived experiences of Canadians.

The objective has always been clear: to enhance the Senate’s credibility. An independent Senate strengthens Canada’s parliamentary democracy in several vital ways. It acts as a chamber of sober second thought. It provides meaningful checks and balances on executive authority. It represents regional and minority interests within our federation. It conducts thorough, less partisan review of legislation, and it undertakes the study of complex or politically sensitive issues. It remains vigilant in protecting Charter rights and maintaining the balance at the heart of our federal system.

The Senate is not meant to compete with the House of Commons; it is meant to complement it. While the elected chamber carries the democratic mandate, this chamber offers 1790 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Tannas ]

careful scrutiny, broader consultation and long-term perspective — free from the immediate pressures of electoral politics. Ultimately, a newly independent Senate is not a departure from our constitutional tradition; it is a reaffirmation of it. After 10 years of reform, we see a Senate that is less partisan, more diverse, more representative, more credible and firmly grounded in our institutional role. In practising independence, we have strengthened not only this institution but, I would argue, Canadian democracy itself.

Finally, colleagues, if I have learned anything in the past 10 years, it is that we are but temporary and, indeed, fleeting custodians of this institution. May our efforts to be less partisan and more independent guide our deliberations. Thank you. Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of James Gallant. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator White. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR SOIL HEALTH BILL THIRD REPORT OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE PRESENTED Hon. Mary Robinson: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which deals with Bill S-230,

An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for soil health protection, conservation and enhancement. (For text of report, see today’s Journals of the Senate , p. 715.) The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration? (On motion of Senator Robinson, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.) THE SENATE MOTION TO RESOLVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO RECEIVE ANNETTE RYAN, PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICER NOMINEE ADOPTED Hon.

Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(k), I move: That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, usual practice or previous order: 1. at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive Annette Ryan respecting her appointment as Parliamentary Budget Officer; 2. the Committee of the Whole report to the Senate no later than 65 minutes after it begins; 3. the witness’ introductory remarks last a maximum of five minutes; 4. if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-31(3)(d), including the responses of the witness, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator; and 5. if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators? Hon. Senators: Agreed. •

(1350) The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It is moved by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson: That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, usual practice or previous order: 1. at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive Annette Ryan respecting her appointment as Parliamentary Budget Officer; 2. the Committee of the Whole report to the Senate no later than 65 minutes after it begins; 3. the witness’ introductory remarks last a maximum of five minutes; March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1791

4. if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-31(3)(d), including the responses of the witness, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator; and 5. if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining. Are senators ready for the question? Hon. Senators: Question. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Hon.

Senators: Agreed. (Motion agreed to.) PARLIAMENTARY BUDGET OFFICER NOTICE OF MOTION TO APPROVE APPOINTMENT Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move: That, in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, the Senate approve the appointment of Annette Ryan as Parliamentary Budget Officer. [Translation] L’ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE SESSION OF THE AMERICA REGIONAL ASSEMBLY , SEPTEMBER 9-11, 2025—REPORT TABLED Hon.

Éric Forest: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) concerning the Fortieth Session of the APF America Regional Assembly, held in Quebec City, Quebec, from September 9 to 11, 2025. LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS WOMEN OF THE APF, NOVEMBER 3-7, 2025—REPORT TABLED Hon.

Éric Forest: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF) concerning the Eighth Leadership Workshop for Parliamentarians Women of the APF, held in Paris, France, from November 3 to 7, 2025. [English] QUESTION PERIOD FINANCE COST OF FOOD Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Senator Moreau, on Tuesday, Senator Martin questioned you about Canada’s food inflation, which you blamed on world supply chain issues. I looked at the food inflation numbers for the G7, and they don’t support your argument.

Canada’s food inflation of 7.3% is two times that of Japan and the U.K., two and a half times that of the U.S., three times that of Germany and Italy and four times that of France. Since supply chains are obviously not the issue, to what should we attribute Canada’s food inflation? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. My answer to Senator Martin was that inflation is tied to global supply chains, climate- driven shocks and currency pressures that have been volatile in recent years. Currency pressure directly affects grocery prices.

The fact is that what is happening here in Canada is happening elsewhere in the world because of a global disruption. When the United States totally changes the way they trade with the world, it has a ripple effect at the international level. That was my answer to Senator Martin. There are other factors that contribute to problems we have in our grocery stores, such as climate change.

Lettuce, tomatoes and everything else that we find on shelves — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] Senator MacDonald: Well, Senator Moreau, of the G7 countries, Canada and the U.S. are the only net exporters of food. We get some fruit and vegetables in the winter but are more self-sufficient than any of the G7 countries. Japan only produces 38% of its food, but they — like the U.S. — do not have any carbon taxes on food production.

When are you going to admit that the government’s taxation policies are the source of our food inflation and get rid of the policies burdening Canadian consumers? Senator Moreau: If you want to compare the position of Canada among the G7, let me share a few things with you. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canada has the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canada is — among the G20 countries — the second-best country for doing business. It is not the government saying that; it is the Economist Intelligence Unit.

I think we have a very strong fiscal position as well as a strong economy — 1792 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026

[Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] INNOV ATION, SCIENCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY REFORM Hon. Larry W. Smith: Senator Moreau, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s latest Red Tape Report highlights that regulatory compliance now costs Canadian businesses $51.5 billion a year, with nearly $18 billion of that attributed to red tape. To put that in perspective, businesses spend 768 million hours annually navigating compliance requirements, with small businesses shouldering the majority of the costs.

Senator Moreau, small businesses are still bearing a disproportionate share of this burden, which raises this question: What concrete steps is your government taking to streamline regulations and demonstrate that improving Canada’s economic competitiveness is a genuine priority? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The Government of Canada takes very seriously the situation of small businesses, Senator Smith, and I thank you for raising that question.

The government recognizes the challenges that many small- and medium-sized enterprises face; that’s why the government is helping small businesses by reducing red tape. The effects will probably not be immediate, but we are trying. We are working on it by improving access to financing, notably by expanding Business Development Bank of Canada, or BDC, loans to small- and medium-sized businesses to $5 million.

We are providing $500 million to BDC for small- and medium-sized businesses to access resources and insight that will lead to their success as well as promoting the productivity super-deduction to small businesses to write off new equipment costs. We are helping small businesses because we think they are the backbone of the Canadian economy. FINANCE SMALL BUSINESS TAX REGIME Hon. Larry W. Smith: The Fraser Institute estimates that personal income tax compliance costs have risen to $4.2 billion annually. The complexity and size of the tax system in Canada have continued to grow without any meaningful review.

Senator Moreau, will the government heed the calls from businesses as well as experts to review and simplify the tax system in order to reduce compliance costs, particularly for small businesses, which are already facing major financial pressures? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): That is a good question, Senator Smith, and the government is aware of the pressure on small businesses in Canada. The government is making very important moves in order to help small businesses.

My previous answer gave you a few cues on that, and the government is committed to continuing to help small- and medium-sized businesses in Canada. NATIONAL DEFENCE DEFENCE, SECURITY & RESILIENCE BANK Hon. Tony Loffreda: Senator Moreau, the proposed defence, security and resilience bank, or DSRB, would be a new, multilateral financial institution designed to mobilize capital and provide affordable financing for defence, security and resilience projects among NATO members and allied nations.

Recent initiatives led by partners such as Montréal International highlight Montreal’s interest in hosting the future headquarters and note that the city already hosts nearly 70 international organizations and has a strong ecosystem with respect to finance, aerospace, artificial intelligence and defence. Could the government inform the Senate about Canada’s level of commitment to establishing the DSRB?

What steps is Canada taking to advance the project, what timeline does the government foresee for the bank’s establishment and what financial implications or contributions are anticipated for the Government of Canada? •

(1400) Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government is firmly committed to its establishment, and the project has received the support of the big six Canadian banks and other major financial players on the international stage. I can confirm with you that the Prime Minister has been speaking to our international partners about it. That is a reason why the Prime Minister is travelling throughout the world — to ensure that we have strong economic alliances with other partners.

The government has emphasized the need to mobilize capital and strengthen defence supply chains in support of our collective security, which includes the Arctic, and such discussions include the founding of the bank. Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that answer. Given Montreal’s strong bid to host the headquarters, could the government clarify whether it is actively supporting Montreal’s candidacy and engaging international partners to secure the outcome? I know that the Government of Ontario, for example, has publicly pitched Toronto as a possible location for the headquarters.

Furthermore, what diplomatic or financial discussions are under way with allied countries to ensure that the bank is established quickly and with meaningful Canadian participation? Senator Moreau: From your question, I understand that no one is pushing Ottawa to host the bank. Well, there is a willingness among provinces to have the bank. March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1793

You know that while I cannot comment on international negotiations, I can confirm that those discussions are ongoing. The government is aware of the Quebec government’s position, as well as the Ontario government’s, regarding their bid. Once the government has more to share on this, I will be sure to share it with the Senate. [Translation] FINANCE BUY CANADIAN Hon. Martine Hébert: Government Representative, we know that the Government of Canada has strengthened its “Buy Canadian” policy to help Canadian businesses get through these turbulent times.

We also know that it intends to use Canadian materials whenever possible to build certain major projects, such as the high-speed train. I recently participated in meetings with representatives of the agricultural sector, and they were concerned. They want to know if the Government of Canada has a similar approach for public contracts to supply Canadian agri-food products to institutions under federal jurisdiction. For example, for the food served in prisons and the army, does the government have a procurement policy for Canadian agri‑food products and Canadian raw ingredients used to make those products? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): That’s a very specific question about food products, senator. The policy applies to four types of procurement: construction, goods, services, and services related to goods, particularly for the agricultural sector. Last year, the government announced the “Buy Canadian” policy as part of a suite of measures to protect, develop and transform strategic Canadian industries. That includes the agricultural sector, where the focus is on biofuels. Your question is much more specifically about processed foods.

I will bring your question to the attention of the government officials responsible for agri-food products, including in the penitentiary system. I’ll get back to you with more detailed information. Senator Hébert: Thank you, Senator Moreau; it’s much appreciated. My question was about more than just prisons. I used prisons as an example. May I ask you to ensure that such a policy is a priority for the Canadian government, if that’s not already the case, and if not, to suggest it to the government in order to support our industry? Thank you. Senator Moreau: Thank you for the suggestion.

Generally speaking, the idea behind the “Buy Canadian” policy is to favour Canadian products over a strictly price-based model. You know this area very well, so I don’t need to go into detail. Yes, I will pass on your suggestion, and I believe this policy should apply broadly across the government, which is one of the largest purchasers of Canadian products, in order to strengthen our economy. [English] EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACCESSIBILITY Hon.

Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler: Senator Moreau, last month the Chief Accessibility Officer released her annual report, which focuses on barriers to accessible transportation faced by people with disabilities. The officer notes that persistent barriers to accessible transportation are a significant obstacle to achieving the legislated goal of a barrier-free Canada by 2040. Will the government commit to placing accessible transportation on the agenda at federal-provincial-territorial meetings, as recommended by the officer? [Translation] Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I don’t have an immediate answer to your question. I understand that your question is more a recommendation that you would like to make to the organizations that are preparing for the federal-provincial-territorial meetings. I just realized that I’m answering your question in French. [English] I’m sorry. I should have answered your question in English. I understand that your question is more a recommendation to the organizer of federal-provincial-territorial meetings. I will certainly ensure that your suggestion is taken into consideration.

TRANSPORT TRA VELLERS WITH DISABILITIES Hon. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler: Thank you, Senator Moreau. It is a recommendation from the Chief Accessibility Officer. The report notes that even though the federal transportation sector is highly regulated, there is little meaningful data about travellers with disabilities. What steps will the government take to ensure that federal transportation agencies collect data on users with disabilities? 1794 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Moreau ]

Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I am sure that the Minister of Transport is aware of the recommendation. I will get in touch with him to see if there is something that I can bring to your attention or to answer your question on this more specifically. You know that accessibility for those with disabilities in the transportation system is a multi-faceted system. It concerns not just the federal government but also the provincial and municipal governments as well. PUBLIC SAFETY CANADA COMMUNITY SECURITY PROGRAM Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the Government Representative.

Senator Moreau, I would like to follow up on the question and answer we had yesterday with regards to anti‑Semitism. About the time we were talking, the government made a new announcement in response to the growing scourge of anti‑Semitism in Canada. Could you tell us more about the announcement they made with regards to the Canada Community Security Program? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. The government announced a dedicated investment of up to $10 million to be provided to eligible organizations through the Canada Community Security Program.

This investment will assist Jewish communities in enhancing the security of their gathering spaces, including schools, daycares, overnight camps and places of worship. As I mentioned yesterday, any hate-motivated violence, like what we saw in Toronto over the last week, is unacceptable and will not be tolerated anywhere in Canada. The government is working directly with Jewish community organizations to identify and support the specific needs in those communities as far as security is concerned. COMBATTING HATE Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Thank you, senator.

In a supplementary question, I would like to ask you to update us on a couple of other items with regard to combatting hate faced by Jewish and other communities. One is the status of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, and the other is the status of the Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion, which will report to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, as was announced a few weeks ago. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): You were referring to Bill C-9.

Effectively, the government has made a strong commitment to protecting places of worship, schools and community centres by significantly increasing the budget of the Canada Community Security Program and with the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, which we will be studying. The government has also committed to making it a criminal offence to intentionally and wilfully obstruct access to places of worship, schools and community centres, which goes directly to combatting the — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] FINANCE AFFORDABILITY FOR SENIORS Hon.

Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, the latest Ageing in Canada Survey from the National Institute on Ageing paints a troubling picture for Canadian seniors. One third say the rising cost of living is their top concern. Twenty per cent of seniors now live below the poverty line, and 43% say they cannot afford to retire when they plan to do so. Canadians who have worked hard their entire lives should be able to retire with dignity and security, yet many are increasingly worried about how they will afford basic necessities.

Senator Moreau, after years of growing financial insecurity among seniors, why has the government still failed to deliver meaningful relief to ensure that Canadian seniors can live and retire with dignity? •

(1410) Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The government takes the economic situation very seriously. We recognize that affordability, not only for seniors, but for all Canadians, is of the utmost importance. That is why the government is acting accordingly by lowering taxes for 22 million Canadians, cutting the consumer carbon tax, and protecting pharmacare, dental care and child care. Dental care and pharmacare go directly to seniors. The government is also lowering the requirements for accessing the disability tax credit and providing immediate relief on the cost of groceries.

This takes into account the situation of seniors as well. Affordability is a multi-faceted problem, and the government is taking it very seriously. Senator Martin: Senator Moreau, I’m sorry, but the numbers do not lie. Roughly 1 in 10 food bank users is now a senior. Many are now forced to choose between paying for groceries or purchasing essential medicine. Beyond the financial strain, this affordability crisis is also contributing to isolation among seniors who can no longer afford social and recreational activities.

When will the government acknowledge that its policies are making life less affordable for seniors, and what immediate relief will you give them? March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1795

Senator Moreau: Senator Martin, I don’t intend to play politics with the situation of seniors in Canada. It is irresponsible to ask questions on how to relieve the painful situation seniors and Canadians are now in when your party at the House of Commons is voting against budget measures that would help those people. That is not responsible, and it is not the way we should discuss the matter in this chamber either. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Moreau, thank you. TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT INFORMATION TRANSPARENCY Hon.

Fabian Manning: Government leader, in your government’s review of the Access to Information Act, the Treasury Board discussion papers are proposing changes that could delay responses, narrow what counts as an official record and allow departments to put requests on hold, effectively reducing Canadians’ access to information. Experts, including the Information Commissioner, have said that these proposals lack ambition and are a step backward for transparency.

Senator Moreau, can you share the rationale for supporting these changes or are these measures simply designed to shield the government from accountability under the guise of modernizing access to information? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): My understanding, senator, is that the government is committed to transparency and modernizing the system of access to information. We have many discussions in committees and in the chamber concerning those important issues. My understanding is that there is a very strong commitment by the government to improve transparency.

Senator Manning: Senator Moreau, these proposed changes ignore long-standing issues, like excessive delays and cabinet confidence exemptions. Despite decades of warnings from transparency experts, how can Canadians trust that these changes are about improving transparency rather than creating loopholes to shield government decisions from public scrutiny? Senator Moreau: I’m confident that there are no bad intentions behind the government’s transparency measure, regardless of which party is governing at the time of the proposed legislation. I do not see any bad intentions.

Quite the contrary, I reiterate that the government is committed to more transparency. ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Moreau, the Canadian Climate Institute recently released an independent assessment on the federal government’s 2025 Progress Report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. They found that the report presents a credible picture of the progress. However, the results do not align with Canada’s climate targets, neither meeting our 2030 goals nor reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Senator Moreau, how will Canada address the growing gap between the country’s expected emissions reduction and its targets? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Coyle, for the question. The government remains committed to reaching the Paris target of net-zero emissions by 2050. The 2025 Progress Report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan makes clear that earlier approaches were not sufficient, which is why the government is prioritizing results and concrete action, as outlined in Budget 2025.

The budget introduced several major measures to close the emission gap, including new methane regulations, the strengthening of industrial carbon pricing and nearly $90 billion in clean investment tax credits to accelerate the transition to a net-zero economy. The government will continue working with provinces, territories, Indigenous partners and industry to drive innovation, reduce emissions and ensure that Canada remains competitive in the global net-zero economy. Senator Coyle: Thank you. Senator Moreau, the report highlights that the electricity sector has led Canada’s emissions reduction.

Federal measures, including industrial carbon pricing, the coal phase-out, Clean Electricity Regulations and investment tax credits, all have important roles to play in the effort. Will the upcoming Clean Electricity Strategy include these measures, and will Canada continue to build out our national electricity infrastructure with urgency? Senator Moreau: As a former minister of energy in Quebec, I’m well aware of the importance of the electricity grid in reducing our emissions. The electricity sector is, indeed, central to Canada’s emission reduction and to achieving net zero by 2050.

In Budget 2025, the government committed to delivering the following: clean electricity investment tax credit enhancement to the tax credits that have already been implemented, including a 15% credit for investment in low-emitting generation — The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau. 1796 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026

NATIONAL DEFENCE DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY Hon. Colin Deacon: Senator Moreau, earlier this week, the government announced that the National Research Council would commit over $900 million to drone innovation as part of Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy. This is a welcome investment that provides a clear signal of support for the scaling of dual-use technologies in Canada. However, the newly created Defence Investment Agency will only streamline procurement projects over $100 million, primarily benefiting large incumbents, including foreign entities.

Meanwhile, Canada’s SMEs continue to face significant barriers with programs such as the Innovative Solutions Canada, or ISC, Testing Stream and Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security, or IDEaS, contracting at a ceiling of $10 million. This leaves a substantial gap for companies trying to scale. Does the government intend to introduce additional funding mechanisms under the Defence Industrial Strategy that specifically focus on Canadian SMEs seeking to scale their growth in that gap of $10 million to $100 million? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Deacon, you are highlighting the important contribution that small- and medium-sized businesses and enterprises bring to our economy and defence procurement.

Your concern is actually answered by the Regional Defence Investment Initiative, which aims to support small- and medium- sized enterprises to integrate into our defence supply chain, enhance industrial and innovation capacity in support of Canada’s defence and security needs, adapt dual-use technologies and capabilities for defence applications, and develop projects that improve the productivity and readiness of Canada’s regional defence ecosystem. The program is delivered by Canada’s regional development agency but is in coordination with the Defence Industrial Strategy.

I have been informed that the funding under the Regional Defence Investment Initiative is available for activity undertaken between April 1, 2025, and March 31, 2028. Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Moreau. The reality we have seen on the battlefield in Ukraine is that modern, agile, small-scale tech — which Canada has plenty of — is crucial to success and has dual-use benefits. I’m pleased to hear your affirmation that this is a focus. I have not seen it as of yet, but I look forward to learning more. Perhaps your office, if they could be so kind, will make sure that we receive that documentation.

Senator Moreau: Yes. Let me reiterate that the government continues to work with industry and regional partners to ensure that Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises can successfully scale up so that they can participate in the growing defence supply chain, with the massive investment that the government has made in that area. CANADIAN HERITAGE CBC/RADIO-CANADA Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, recent testimony before a committee in the other place, from a former CBC anchor, raises deeply troubling allegations about Canada’s public broadcaster.

Travis Dhanraj, the former host of “Canada Tonight,” told parliamentarians that he was repeatedly silenced and intimidated, and he described what he called a toxic culture within the CBC. He also spoke about instances where he was blocked from booking conservative voices on his program and even prevented from reaching out to Conservative parliamentarians for comment. •

(1420) Canadian taxpayers expect their hard-earned dollars to fund a balanced and independent broadcaster. How can Canadians trust the CBC when these serious allegations suggest bias, mismanagement and a toxic workplace culture — over $1 billion? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): You are well aware that the CBC is an independent Crown corporation. You were not aware of that? But it is a Crown corporation, and what you are referring to is a situation between an employer and an employee.

There is no political involvement in that chain between the CBC as an employer and the gentleman to whom you are referring as an employee, as well as his testimony. I think that it is exactly what it should be: no political involvement in the labour relations within a Crown corporation. If the government were to do otherwise, you would be the first to criticize that, and you would be right. Whenever there is a situation where a Crown corporation is an employer, let them deal with it. If anything illegal has been done, the courts will settle the matter. That is where — March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1797

[Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] Senator Martin: It is a Crown corporation, but it is funded by taxpayers at $1.4 billion per year. Many people feel they are not getting value for their money nor a fair representation of the full range of views of this country. Why does your government refuse to address the growing concerns about bias, mismanagement and the loss of public trust at the CBC? Senator Moreau: What do you know about this specific case regarding the fact that there is mismanagement?

I don’t know the situation between that employee and his employer, and you probably do not know either. It is one side. When you have testimony, it is one side of the matter. I would prevent any member of this chamber from interfering in the management between an employer and an employee. That is not the way it works in Canada. HEALTH PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS Hon. Marilou McPhedran: My question is about children and access to pediatric medicines.

Senator Moreau, Canada’s drug approval system does not adequately meet children’s needs because pediatric data and formulations are very often missing, and many medications are prescribed off-label. That means medications are used for indications that have not received regulatory approval from Health Canada for children. Pharmacists must modify adult drugs to treat young patients safely. Is the government taking steps to ensure Canadian children have timely access to medications specifically approved and formulated for pediatric use? Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I don’t have a specific answer to that question. I will certainly raise it with the Minister of Health, and I will get back to you. Senator McPhedran: Thank you. I look forward to receiving the answer. Senator Moreau: I hope that I will be able to provide you with the answer as quickly as possible.

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS MAKING LIFE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR CANADIANS BILL MESSAGE FROM COMMONS— DISAGREEMENT WITH SENATE AMENDMENT The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons which reads as follows: Thursday, March 12, 2026 EXTRACT, — That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-4,

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the House respectfully disagrees with the amendment made to the bill by the Senate because Parliament should be the body that decides the rules that govern communication by federal parties with Canadians, the amendment constitutes a substantive reversal of the principle of the proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act in

Part 4 of Bill C-4, the government intends to bring forward additional privacy provisions in legislative changes to the Canada Elections Act within this parliamentary session, and furthermore, 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.

ATTEST Eric Janse Clerk of the House of Commons The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this message be taken into consideration? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 5-7(h), I move that the message be considered now. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? Hon. Senators: Agreed. (Motion agreed to.) 1798 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026

[Translation] MESSAGE FROM COMMONS—MOTION FOR NON-INSISTENCE UPON SENATE AMENDMENT—DEBATE The Senate proceeded to consideration of the message from the House of Commons. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate) moved: That, in relation to Bill C-4,

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the Senate do not insist on its amendment with which the House of Commons has disagreed; and That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly. He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the message we received from the other place and to ask that we accept its decision.

I want to begin by thanking all senators for their work at every stage of this bill, including the Committee of the Whole last June, the meetings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the National Finance Committee, and the debates in this chamber. The official opposition plays a critical role in our parliamentary system. I also want to thank Senator Carignan for his constructive input during this bill’s development.

Lastly, I want to thank Senator Cuzner for his excellent work as the sponsor of Bill C-4, and I sincerely hope that he won’t completely rule out the possibility of sponsoring more bills in the future. Honourable colleagues, you heard the message from the other place. Since our last discussion on Bill C-4, the Prime Minister has announced that by-elections will be held on April 13 in three ridings. This calls to mind two of the fundamental reasons for

Part 4 of Bill C-4. First of all, it is vital, logical and advisable for federal political parties to operate within a uniform federal electoral framework. Second, it is essential to counter the effects of a ruling that would have subjected our electoral system to a patchwork of legal regimes, rendering it dysfunctional. At the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and again in this chamber, I presented the arguments that today’s message reiterates. Let’s not forget that part of our role is to ensure that the democratic will respects constitutional principles.

It is not our role to compete with that will when it is expressed clearly and without division. In the Patriation Reference, the Supreme Court recognized that Canada’s constitutional architecture is not limited to the text itself, but includes other overarching principles, such as democracy and institutional balance. In this case, the elected chamber has voted almost unanimously on the very rules that govern the electoral process, that is, on the normative infrastructure of democratic representation. •

(1430) Part 4 of Bill C-4 has the unanimous support of all recognized parties in the House of Commons, including the Bloc Québécois. This unanimous support is certainly not a constitutional convention, but it is a constitutional fact with a very strong democratic impact. Like Senator Harder, I also explained how the Senate must exercise virtue and restraint and respect the delicate balance of our parliamentary architecture. Colleagues, I do not intend to repeat these arguments. I would rather focus on an aspect that, in my view, was not sufficiently explored in this debate.

As a complementary parliamentary body, the Senate sometimes has to work in solidarity with the elected representatives of Parliament. In this uncertain and divided world, at a time when the values of liberal democracies are under attack, this solidarity is all the more essential. Political parties are at the heart of Canada’s style of governance. They are central to Canada’s democratic process. Canadians engaging with politics on a daily basis identify closely with the political parties that make up the House of Commons.

At a time when our federation is facing separatist threats, we must recognize that federal political parties are also a uniting force for Canada. To be clear, this does not mean that political parties are untouchable and that their work should remain unchecked and unchallenged. On the contrary, for democracy to function properly and be as representative as possible, we must accept that the various institutions within it can function differently. For example, social movements operate outside of formal political processes.

This chamber has achieved gender parity today thanks to women’s movements in Canada and the momentum they generated for recognition of their rights. Just a few days ago, Senator McBean spoke about the stigma that members of 2SLGBTQ+ communities still face today. It is hard to imagine such a speech being delivered in this chamber without recalling the social movements that, with good reason, continue to campaign for the recognition of their rights.

In other words, colleagues, in a liberal democracy, social movements, civil society, the courts, interest and advocacy groups, and Parliament itself, each in their own way, with their formal and informal rules, shape our democratic life. The ideas they promote influence political parties and, through them, sometimes even the composition of the House of Commons. Political parties are often criticized for their lack of transparency. They’re often portrayed as closed-minded organizations that impose their ideological brand on MPs and Canadians, just like private businesses.

I can assure you, based on personal experience, that this is far from the truth. Even though we don’t always see the inner workings of political parties, they do engage in healthy and often extremely robust March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1799

debate. In choosing their priorities, caucuses give voice to what Canadians want because they represent the communities that chose them. How else could they get elected? Social media and traditional media often negatively influence our perception of political parties. Their often harsh and sometimes incomplete analyses fuel some of the cynicism that people feel for political parties.

In reality, in each of Canada’s 343 ridings, recognized parties and smaller parties form more than a thousand riding associations run by tens of thousands of dedicated volunteers who in turn interact with hundreds of thousands of Canadians during every general election. Colleagues, our political parties are much more firmly rooted in the daily realities of our constituents than even the most famous of our political commentators.

In his presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Professor William Cross of Carleton University explained that they are passionate supporters of their favoured parties, engaging in activities that have profound implications for our politics. This is the secret garden of our politics. Colleagues, as the message from the other place indicated, the government intends to bring forward additional privacy provisions in legislative changes to the Canada Elections Act within this parliamentary session.

Colleagues, I am not suggesting that this is a promise or that I have prophetic powers, but I expect the privacy provisions to reflect the realities I just described. Political parties are unique entities in our political system and should be treated as such. While political parties do have national headquarters with paid employees, they are also, and more importantly, driven by tens of thousands of volunteers dedicated to serving democracy in Canada. As a former elected member of a provincial legislature, I naturally feel a special connection to the elected parliamentarians in the other place.

I also believe, especially in this time of crisis when the legitimacy of representative democracy is sometimes questioned, that it is also the duty of this chamber to support the work done by our elected representatives. I don’t know a single elected member of a provincial legislature, or even of Parliament, who gets up in the morning thinking about how they can harm their voters. I don’t know a single one. We should have the utmost respect for the men and women who have the courage to put their face on some posters and ask their fellow citizens to support them. Those people are brave.

In order to keep our democracy healthy, it is our duty to encourage men, women, young people and everyone who represents social groups in Canada to seek a democratic mandate and get themselves elected. That is how Canadian democracy will remain healthy, strong and an inspiration to the world. I am absolutely sure the other place is listening, because the government’s message about reviewing the privacy provisions in the Canada Elections Act is clear.

Nevertheless, once we get a chance to revisit this legislation, and after listening to the concerns of privacy advocates — legitimate as they are — we will also need to make sure that we hear from the political parties themselves, not only their lawyers, as well as from volunteers who work for riding associations, to ensure that our reports and recommendations better reflect how democracy works at the local level. We have to listen more to the people who do the sometimes messy work of democratic politics and pay attention to the opinions of the men and women volunteering in the trenches.

In conclusion, honourable colleagues, 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. I therefore ask that you accept the message sent to us by the other place so that we can get Royal Assent on Bill C-4 today. This bill contains many important measures, and Canadians are eager for them to be passed. Thank you. [English] Hon.

Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I will try to be brief. I, too, would like to thank Senator Cuzner and Senator Carignan for their work on Bill C-4. I would also highlight that they came into this particular project from a unique perspective. They both happened to have put their names on ballots, and they both happened to have been elected at various levels of government. •

(1440) It is also important to highlight and consider that the Senate should be very diligent in picking its spots if we want to remain legitimate. You’ve heard me say many times that we have not only the responsibility but the obligation to be robust when it comes to reviewing legislation. I have also said many times in this chamber that it is clear in our Constitution that we have the same rights and privileges as parliamentarians in the House of Commons, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that we are appointed. We always have to weigh and measure very carefully how we exercise those rights and privileges.

They come with a huge responsibility. I remember the gentleman who appointed me to this chamber, the Right Honourable Prime Minister Harper, who himself had deep reservations about an unelected chamber.

He always used to say, “You are given a tremendous privilege, and if you are going to oppose a piece of legislation, make sure you have the full weight of the public and voices across this country who feel not heard legitimately in the other place.” That means we have to really be tempered and carefully consider the steps we take when we oppose a piece of legislation. 1800 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Moreau ]

In this case, we all know that this legislation was approved 100% by every single member of the other place. It was approved by five different political parties in the other place. I think that when you put together the composition of the votes of all those political parties, it comes out to close to 97% of the Canadian electorate.

Again, for those of us who have engaged in politics — and I’ll reiterate what the government leader, Senator Moreau, said — I, too, have never met a politician who got up in the morning and said, “How can I deliberately contravene the rights of the people I represent in a representative democracy?” If you know any politician of that nature, they don’t last in this business for very long. When we take all these elements into consideration, we did more than a robust job that went above and beyond the duties and responsibilities of this chamber.

On behalf of the official opposition, I want to say that we have to absolutely respect the message that has come back. Thank you, colleagues. [Translation] Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, allow me to thank my colleagues, Senator Moreau, Senator Housakos, Senator Cuzner and Senator Carignan, as well as all senators who spoke on Bill C-4. I believe it is important to hear everyone’s voice. I rise today to speak to the motion relating to the message from the other place rejecting the Senate amendment to Bill C-4,

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. Despite this unfavourable outcome with regard to the Senate amendment, I welcome the fact that the government is officially confirming, through this message, that it intends to introduce additional provisions in the current parliamentary session aimed at strengthening privacy protection through amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Colleagues, I would like to begin by sharing how proud I am of the work accomplished by the committees that studied Bill C-4, particularly the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The committees worked in a condensed format of six hours of study in a single day, conducting a serious examination of

Part 4 of this bill amending the Canada Elections Act. The testimony heard by that committee clearly showed that

Part 4, on the protection of personal information by political parties, was seriously flawed. Academics, experts and rights organizations highlighted the considerable risks that

Part 4 posed to democracy, digital sovereignty and national security. Confronted with such serious issues, this chamber had a duty to examine and respond to them, which it did diligently by passing an amendment at third reading. Today, honourable colleagues, we must decide whether to bow to the wishes of the other place to defeat this amendment, or to stand by our wish to pursue it. In the circumstances, I’m going to comment on the principles of deference.

My goal is to offer a balanced view of the Senate’s role in examining government bills, and then further reflect on the deference that the Senate owes the elected House. I want to set the record straight on this because I believe that certain speeches, in the absence of adequate context, could damage public trust in our democratic institutions and in the consideration given to important bills like Bill C-4 and could equally damage many other bills. The more we speak of deference without nuance, applying it to any and all situations, the more that context becomes meaningless.

We have to approach the matter of deference in a way that protects the Senate’s raison d’être while respecting the intent of the founding fathers. Our bicameral system, which is the result of the constitutional compromise that gave rise to our country, consists of two separate but complementary chambers, contributing to the institutional balance of our democracy. The upper chamber’s core mandate is to protect regional and minority interests, thus filling a democratic deficit that would be impossible to fill with a single elected chamber that represents the interests of the majority.

We cannot simply invoke deference to question whether the exercise of our duties is legitimate. Let’s be clear: The principle of deference in no way reduces our institution’s responsibility to conduct a rigorous and independent review of the legislation presented to us. Our sober second thought may lead us to propose and adopt amendments, as we did in the case of Bill C-4. That is perfectly legitimate. [English] Deference should not mean silence, and respect for the elected chamber should not mean abandoning responsibility to examine legislation carefully.

In a 2017 opinion piece in Maclean’s, Professor of Political Science Emmett Macfarlane illustrated this perspective when discussing the newly reformed Senate: The Senate is not engaged in activism when it proposes amendments that are accepted by the House of Commons. The Senate is not engaged in obstructionism when it proposes amendments the House of Commons refuses and it then passes the original legislation. Instead, the Senate is merely exercising an advisory or complementary role consistent with its purpose.

One might even argue that the record thus far suggests the new Senate has in fact acted with more principle than in the recent past. March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1801

This perspective reminds us that exchanges between the Senate and the House of Commons are not evidence of institutional conflict but part of the collaborative legislative process that strengthens public policy. Sir John A. Macdonald, whose legacy remains complex, envisioned a healthy democratic dialogue between the two chambers.

During the debates on Confederation in 1865, he argued that members of the upper chamber would represent the broader interests of the country and could legitimately challenge the elected chamber when necessary, reflecting what he described as the “. . . deliberate will of the people on general questions . . . .” When speaking on the duty of deference, it is important to consider these views and provide a balanced perspective. Independence requires intellectual honesty and a principled approach based on evidence. The concept of deference must be understood in relation to our independence.

History demonstrates that deference in the upper chamber is usually triggered later in the parliamentary process, rather than at second reading, committee stage or third reading. If, upon review of the proposed legislation, the Senate deems it important to send a message to the other place, it should do so without constraints. This dialogue between the two chambers improves transparency and accountability to the public about what might be of concern with certain bills. Those exchanges are not evidence of institutional conflict; they are the constitutional design of our great democracy. •

(1450) The Senate, even when highly partisan, actively shaped legislation across a wide range of policy areas. For example, the Senate influenced the outcome for a major borrowing bill in 1984, Bill C-11; proposed amendments on two pieces of controversial immigration legislation in 1987, Bill C-84 and Bill C-85; and proposed amendments for employment insurance reform in 1989, through Bill C-21. It also intervened on measures with major economic or social implications, such as a copyright bill — Bill C-60 — in 1987 and the abortion bill in 1991, when the Senate famously defeated the bill in a tie vote.

As the late Queen’s University political scientist Ned Franks observed during his testimony before the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform, while disagreements between the chambers sometimes occur, claims of Senate obstruction are often “. . . greatly overrated . . . .” The modern Senate, more independent and diverse than at any other point in history, continues to play this role by bringing expertise and regional perspectives to the careful review of legislation. These precedents show that, historically, the Senate has not automatically deferred to the other place while a bill is under study.

It also calls into question alarmist narratives suggesting that amendments and dialogue between our two chambers are somehow new and specific to a modern Senate. In fact, more recent history reflects the continuation of this long-standing dynamic of dialogue between the two chambers. For example, the Senate’s consideration of the Cannabis Act in 2018 resulted in 5 substantive amendments that strengthened the government’s approach; and, in the case of Bill C-69, which enacted the Impact Assessment Act in 2019, it led to a total of 99 Senate amendments. I knew you would like that reference, Senator Housakos.

Deference should only be exercised after thorough, independent examination and when senators have fully considered the implications of the legislation. To defer prematurely would be neither intellectually honest nor in the best interests of Canadians. Participation in the legislative process free from partisan interests and electoral pressures should be recognized as a valuable and essential part of our democracy. That brings us to a very simple reality: In a healthy democracy, scrutiny is not a problem to be avoided; it is a safeguard to be valued.

As the Senate has modernized over the past 10 years, it has demonstrated stability for Canadians. Senators’ independent and evidence-based review of legislation enables the chamber to fulfill its purpose of safeguarding the long-term interests of Canadians. Moreover, this vision of the independent Senate is more aligned with the Supreme Court’s

interpretation of our Constitution. In the 2014 reference by the Governor-in-Council concerning reform of the Senate, the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following in paragraph 57: . . . “[i]n creating the Senate in the manner provided in the Act, it is clear that the intention was to make the Senate a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons” . . . .

The framers sought to endow the Senate with independence from the electoral process to which members of the House of Commons were subject, in order to remove senators from a partisan political arena that required unremitting consideration of short-term political objectives. Since Confederation, the Senate has acted as an anchor for Canadians, especially amid changes in government and fluctuating short-term priorities.

Whereas, governments may respond to immediate policy needs, partisan considerations and re-election pressures, the Senate contributes objectivity, continuity and a long-term view in the legislative process. The Senate’s study of Bill C-4 provides a clear example. The Senate fulfilled the role assigned to it by the Constitution by examining provisions that had received limited scrutiny and by raising legitimate questions about the protection of Canadians’ privacy.

By sending a message to the other place, this chamber ensured that these issues received the careful and impartial consideration they deserved, reinforcing Canadians’ expectation of a transparent and accountable legislative process. In conclusion, since my appointment to this chamber, I have witnessed the senators’ commitment to examining legislation both thoroughly and efficiently in order to safeguard the interests 1802 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Moncion ]

and values of Canadians. This work is carried out with a clear appreciation and genuine respect for the role of the elected chamber. As we consider future legislation, let us bear in mind that deference must not become an excuse for abandoning our constitutional responsibilities. Respect between chambers does not mean silence; it means dialogue. When the Senate examines legislation carefully and proposes improvements, it strengthens both our laws and the democratic institutions Canadians rely on.

This is the fundamental principle: The Senate was not created to echo decisions but to examine them carefully, and that is exactly what we must continue to do. Now, with respect to the message concerning Bill C-4, a legitimate question arises: Should we show deference to the will of the other place or reiterate our determination to maintain our position? The Senate has already clearly expressed its view and fulfilled its role of careful scrutiny.

Our position has been noted by the other place, and Canadians are aware of it as well: The Senate is determined to strengthen the protection of their personal data collected by political parties. At this stage, however, the elected chamber has reaffirmed its position by rejecting our amendment. One option now before us is to show deference to that expression of democratic will, and that consideration should be taken into account as we prepare to vote on the motion before us. [Translation] Thank you for your attention. [English] Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. Hon.

Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, I would like to request to revert to ask a question. I need to say, as I have said so many times, that I am not a small person, and I am not a wallflower. It is not as if I blend into the wallpaper here. I stood immediately after Senator Moreau made his speech. I stood and was not recognized. I stood immediately after Senator Housakos made his speech. I stood and was not recognized. I have one question to ask, and I would like to ask for the support of the chamber in reverting so that I can ask my question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do Senator Moreau and Senator Housakos agree to take questions? Senator McPhedran: I only need one. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Which one, Senator McPhedran? Do you want to ask a question of Senator Housakos? Senator McPhedran: Yes. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators? Hon. Senators: Agreed. Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much, colleagues. I really want to say a big thank you to Senator Moncion. What was said on the record just now is very important, and we need to keep it in mind.

Senator Housakos, you made reference in your speech — along with Senator Moreau, over and over in the previous debate on Bill C-4 and again today — that this was a unanimous decision of the House. My question to you is this: Did you know that there was a larger wrap-up motion that was itself passed unanimously but did not indicate unanimous support for the bills within it?

We’ve been told repeatedly — including in your speeches — that there was no division; however, inside that wrap-up motion, Bill C-4, Bill C-13 and Bill C-12 are all mentioned, and Bill C-4 and Bill C-12 are specifically described as a vote on division. Were you aware of that? •

(1500) Senator Housakos: Yes, I was. Were you also aware that at second reading, there was a standing vote, and of the 343 MPs, not one voted against it. Were you aware of that? Senator McPhedran: Not all the MPs in that chamber stood. On both occasions for Bill C-4 and Bill C-12, Elizabeth May registered on division. And in reference to the wrap-up motion, it names her explicitly in both of those. Senator Housakos: My understanding is that at second reading, the Leader of the Green Party voted for the motion, then I believe at third reading, she had other reservations.

But the bottom line, senator, is an overwhelming number of people in the chamber voted in favour of this bill. What is even more important, which I did not mention in my remarks, is the following: At the end of the day, the Canadian democracy is the most respected democracy in the world. To be honest with you, as someone who has participated at a distance within it, I find it quite insulting the level of debate that took place in this chamber by senators like ourselves who were appointed by the elected prime ministers in-house to provide sober second thought.

To somehow be disparaging about our electoral system — one that is respected around the world — quite frankly, I think we are doing a disservice to our democracy, our process and this very Parliament. [Translation] Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Moreau, Housakos and Moncion, for contributing to the debate on the nature of the Senate and its role. I think that the three people who spoke before me provided some interesting and important input today. March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1803

However, I would like to focus on the message we received from the House of Commons and explain why we should accept it. [English] On February 26, this chamber adopted an amendment to

Part 4 of Bill C-4. As you will remember,

Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to assert exclusive federal jurisdiction over the activities of federal political parties, including in relation to their collection, use and storage of Canadians’ personal information. As I said in my speech leading to the adopted amendment, I totally support the assertion of exclusive federal jurisdiction over federal political parties and their interactions with the electorate, including in the collection of personal information about them. Like many of you, my problem with

Part 4 is that it creates a privacy framework with such limited content that it does not guarantee some of the basic privacy rights and protections for Canadians in connection with the use of their personal data collected by federal political parties. The amendment that we adopted and sent to the House of Commons, including the government, was very simple: You should consider recognizing more privacy rights for Canadian voters within the next three years, failing which the parties should lose the protective shield granted to them by

Part 4. Put differently, we proposed a strong incentive to further amend the Canada Elections Act to improve the privacy rights and protections recognized by Canadian voters. Let’s look more closely at the content of the reply message read by the Speaker pro tempore. There are four distinct parts to the reply from the House of Commons. In the first part, the House declared that Parliament should be the body that decides the rules that govern communication by federal parties with Canadians. I fully agree with this statement.

Incidentally, Parliament includes the Senate whose approval is an essential component of enacting any law. There is no reason to disagree there. In the second part of the message, it states that our amendment risks exposing federal political parties to the loss of the protective shield that

Part 4 proposes to grant them. Well, this is true: If there are no legislative amendments to the Canada Elections Act within three years to provide minimum privacy rights, the shield will cease to exist. The third part of the message, and the most interesting for us, reads as follows: . . . the government intends to bring forward additional privacy provisions in legislative changes to the Canada Elections Act within this parliamentary session . . . . That is a message that the session is going to be longer than some expected.

This is exactly what we were asking the government to do by way of our amendment: to bring forward amendments to the Canada Elections Act by adding more substantive privacy provisions within the next three years. That will be the maximum length left in this Parliament, incidentally. Colleagues, we have achieved the goal of our amendment. I think that we can be proud of it. We are proving once more that the Senate brings added value to the legislative process, and it is to the benefit of Canadians. In such a circumstance, there is no reason to insist on our amendment. I will, therefore, vote to accept the message.

Before concluding, I would like to briefly comment on the fourth part of the message, which says: . . . 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. I agree with the principle that the initiative to amend the Canada Elections Act, especially in a significant way, must belong to the elected chamber.

That is one of the reasons why I have consistently opposed the adoption of the Senate bill amending the voting age. Sorry, Senator McPhedran, but this is my view. However, it is our constitutional duty to review legislation carefully as the chamber of sober second thought, including any proposed amendments to the Canada Elections Act, even when adopted unanimously or almost unanimously in the other place. Unanimity should not deter us from fulfilling our constitutional duties.

I’m proud of the fact that this is exactly what our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did and, subsequently, what this whole chamber did. Colleagues, considering the importance of the other measures contained in Bill C-4, it is time to vote to accept the message and send Bill C-4 to Rideau Hall for Royal Assent later today. Our work here is done and well done. Thank you for your attention. Hon. Donna Dasko: Would Senator Dalphond take a question? Senator Dalphond: Yes. Senator Dasko: Senator, one of the phrases in the message is one that I don’t agree with.

It says that there is a long tradition of the Senate deferring to the House of Commons when it comes to the Canada Elections Act. In research that Senator McPhedran did, she found that the Senate amended the Canada Elections Act 15 times in the last 20 years. That suggests that this chamber does not show special deference with respect to the Canada Elections Act. First of all, I would suggest that this phrase in the message is not factually correct, and I would like your view on that. Second, I would also suggest that this chamber has a vital role in our democracy, as do the courts, the media and civil society.

We all must play a role in the health of our democracy. 1804 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Dalphond ]

•

(1510) Surely, we should not defer to the political parties in the House of Commons. They play a vital role as well, but we should never accept the notion or the argument that we have a less substantial role to play in creating and maintaining a strong democracy. I would like to make that statement. Thank you for your comments. Senator Dalphond: Thank you, Senator Dasko, for those two questions because I understand that there are two. I will start with the second one. I agree that the Senate is an important institution.

However, it has to be remembered that the last time a senator became prime minister was at the beginning of the 20th century. Policy evolves, politics evolve and institutions evolve. The ruling of the Supreme Court on the reform of the Senate was rendered not long ago. I was one of the people who drafted the Court of Appeal decision on that very issue, which was confirmed in the Supreme Court, expressing the view that the Senate is a complementary chamber.

Senator Harder’s well-thought-out document that he used to send to us as new appointees when he was the Leader of the Government was a very interesting piece that explained the history of the Senate and the precedents where the Senate did stand its ground. But it also explained the principle that we are, first and foremost, a complementary chamber. At the end of the day, we do our work, and when we get the reply message, we have to be deferent. If there was a huge mistake in the other place’s reply or it was a blatant violation of the Charter of Rights, we should then stand our ground.

However, I don’t expect that this will ever happen in our democracy. That answers the second question. The first one was about the 12 amendments that Senator McPhedran referred to in a previous speech. I have looked at these bills, and none of them could be seen as a significant amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Moreover, they were done at a time when political parties were well represented in this chamber, when the government of the day had ministers in this chamber and the government of the day was asking for amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

The government of the day could not act without the consent of the political parties. Our recent evolution has disconnected most of us from political parties. That evolution pushes us to understand that voices here are no longer the back doors of political parties or the back doors of elected members by those who sit with them at caucus and speak with them at partisan events. That is no longer the case. What is related to the democratic process has to emerge or be initiated where elected officials and government representatives are. Perhaps it is no longer here.

We still review legislation carefully and try to improve it. When we had the review of the Canada Elections Act about Canadians living abroad voting by mail, there was a lot of useful discussion in the Senate, and we made some improvements to the text. That is what belongs to us, but the initiative to say whether Canadians living abroad can vote or not came from the government and from political parties in the House of Commons. The Senate has evolved. We have to consider the fact that everything written 100 years ago was produced in a different context.

We are in a different context now, and I stand by the principle that significant changes to the Canada Elections Act should be initiated in the House of Commons. Thank you. Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Dalphond, will you take one more question? Senator Dalphond: Yes. Senator Cardozo: Thank you. My question is on the issue of unanimity. Senator Moreau and Senator Housakos talked about the high degree of support. Senator McPhedran corrected us, saying that the language in the motion is particularly “those who have unanimous support of all the recognized parties.” That is what we can agree on.

Indeed, Elizabeth May has indicated that she was not in favour of this. My main question is this: To me, it doesn’t really matter that it was a unanimous vote or an almost-unanimous vote. The issue is that it was passed by the House of Commons by a majority of votes. If it was a near-unanimous vote or had the unanimous support of all the recognized parties, it strengthens the case, but it is not a necessary number. The number is 50% plus one. If they were to send the bill back to us with 50% plus one of the votes, it would be as legitimate as a unanimous vote.

I want to make that point because, at another time, there may be a vote that is not a near-unanimous one, and, in my mind, it is as legitimate. I would like your view on that. Senator Dalphond: In considering when to defer and what kinds of things we should defer to, unanimity certainly carries greater weight than when a majority government forces a bill through by using time allocations against two other parties that are opposed to it. That said, you are right. A bill comes to us from the House of Commons. We review it. We do the work as thoroughly as necessary.

Then, if we have proposals to make, we send it back to the House of Commons. If the message is refused by one vote, we might consider insisting, but we’re not there yet. The reason for that is because today we have a bill, and the message is coming back to us unanimously. Thank you. [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I see that Senator McPhedran wanted to ask you a question. Do you want to ask for more time to answer Senator McPhedran’s question? Senator Dalphond: I think I answered the questions, Your Honour. Thank you. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Okay. Thank you.

March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1805

[English] Senator McPhedran: This will be brief, but I think it is important to put it on the record before we vote on Bill C-4. I want to summarize what these sections dropped into a bill on affordability, which is very important for Canadians, and of course, senators will want to support and promote it. However, in the middle of a bill on affordability for Canadians, we have slipped in this sneaky invasion of the privacy of Canadians. In

Part 4 of Bill C-4, there is a removal of any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal, private information of Canadians. In

Part 4, clause 45, it says that any of the provisions for the protection of privacy are “. . . deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.” The bill then says that

Part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000. We are now in the year 2026, and this bill reverts to 26 years ago. The Senate asked why amendments to the Canada Elections Act are buried in this affordability act. We asked thoughtfully and courteously, but we asked. It is a very legitimate question. I want to quote member of Parliament Elizabeth May, who dissented on Bill C-4. It was not unanimous, and frankly, Senator Housakos, to claim unanimity at second reading, when the final vote on the bill was clearly not unanimous, is interesting, shall we say. •

(1520) I’m quoting Elizabeth May: The government says it is sending this back to the Senate, that they have no business, and let it slap them on the wrist for thinking that they can presume to tell anybody in this place about the Canada Elections Act. Senators who have spoken in this house have claimed that Bill C-4 was carried unanimously in this place. My objections were recorded on the record even in the so-called unanimous consent motion. It says, “. . . noting the opposition of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands” — POINT OF ORDER—SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE’S RULING Hon.

Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): I have a point of order. We have received a message from the House of Commons on a bill that has been passed in this chamber. There has been a tradition, obviously, for the Speaker in the chair to show a great deal of flexibility, as you are showing in this particular instance, but the process of deliberations on receiving a message is not to relitigate and reopen debate on the actual bill. It is to give our opinion on the message at hand.

I think Senator McPhedran, with all due respect right now, is relitigating and redebating a process we have already been through on two different readings in this chamber. With all due respect, Your Honour. The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to remind the chamber that the debate at present is on the motion in reply to the message from the House of Commons relating to Bill C-4,

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. While our practice has always been to be flexible and encourage debate, I would ask honourable senators to kindly focus their remarks on the matter before us. MESSAGE FROM COMMONS—MOTION FOR NON-INSISTENCE UPON SENATE AMENDMENT ADOPTED On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moreau, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Petten: That, in relation to Bill C-4,

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the Senate do not insist on its amendment with which the House of Commons has disagreed; and That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly. Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Thank you, Your Honour. I also wish to remind us that the Senate amendment was at three years from when this bill will take effect. Three years from now, the government must have come up with a way of protecting the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

There was a study topic before the Ethics Committee of the House of Commons back in 2018 entitled “Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook.” During that study, they pointed to the need to protect the personal information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

In closing, I want it to be on the record that in voting to support this bill, yes, we are expressing our concern for the affordability crisis in this country, but, in addition to that, Senator Housakos, we are setting back 26 years of the invasion of privacy and the lack of protection of privacy for the sole benefit of political parties in this country. I want that on the record. I’m not relitigating. I am just stating on the record what is actually included in this bill. Hon.

Paul (PJ) Prosper: Honourable senators, I would like to add some comments with regard to the message in light of the debate around the amendments. I listened closely during third reading debate on this bill. I also sit as a member of the Legal Committee, which studied the infamous

Part 4 of Bill C-4. Core questions arising from our debate were not just whether we pass

Part 4 — we move it or amend it — but they also included certain foundational questions, such as, “What is our role? What is our constitutional duty?” 1806 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026

Since our vote on

Part 4, many have weighed in from outside this chamber. Minister MacKinnon, for instance, made his views clear in a March 3 iPolitics

article entitled “MacKinnon says C-4 amendment under consideration but Senate should be deferential on changing elections laws.” Of course, now, in the present moment, we are seized with this message from the other place. While I understand that position generally, I would like to also point out a few things. The first one is the fact that not a single question was posed to Treasury Board officials in committee on

Part 4 of Bill C-4. Second, the minister responsible for the Canada Elections Act, Minister MacKinnon, never appeared on this matter, since the minister responsible on paper is Minister Champagne, as this is ostensibly an affordability act plus another measure. Third, 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. They said so in their letter as part of their ongoing appeal in the B.C. court case that led to this legislation in the first place. At times, 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. We recently heard the Pratte doctrine summarized aptly by Senator Colin Deacon.

It was about when the Senate should insist on the House adopting Senate amendments, which: . . . 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.

Election by plurality should not allow the major political parties to go over the heads of the public will and the public interest. Last week, a so-called expense scandal came to light, which I believe epitomizes one side of public perception of our role. The Senate is using our relatively small hospitality budget to build ties and relationships with our communities and the regions we represent. The National Post and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, or CTF, looked at the cumulative amounts spent between 2019 and present.

Let me be clear: I feel that this is a manufactured scandal, especially when you consider that many of the amounts were cumulative over six years or extremely reasonable when broken down into a per-person amount. The

article notes that hospitality expenses have risen by 67% starting in 2019. I would note in response that former prime minister Justin Trudeau appointed over 100 senators since launching the independent appointment process in 2016. Keep in mind as well that many of us were organizing events to present King Charles III’s Coronation Medals, which would have incurred higher-than- normal usage of hospitality allowances. All of this raised an interesting statement from the CTF Federal Director Franco Terrazzano, who said, “. . .

I bet most Canadians don’t think the Senate is providing 67 per cent more value.” What do we do in light of this criticism? Well, as I see it, we could either shrink from the public view, spend significantly less on hospitality expenses and, thus, engage with stakeholders and community members less. Or we could refuse to allow the public’s impression of us to browbeat us into obscurity. We could, instead, continue to consistently and proudly do our jobs. We could exercise sober second thought and use our positions to communicate what we see as threats to the public interest.

Honourable senators, I think the true value of the Senate is precisely what is at issue today. This is a time to show how an unelected and independent Senate can protect the interests of Canadians. Under the Rules of the Senate, we have precedents and we have options. •

(1530) Senator Downe rightly referenced John A. Macdonald when he pointed out: There would be no use of an Upper House, if it did not exercise, when it thought proper, the right of opposing or amending or postponing the legislation of the Lower House. It would be of no value whatever were it a mere chamber for registering the decrees of the Lower House. This is not a power to be wielded lightly, but it would be an abdication of responsibility to say that it should never be wielded at all. Senator Downe gave many examples of when and how it has been properly wielded before, and I believe this should be added to the list. During the Thirty-ninth Parliament, on November 23, 2006, Bill C-2,

An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability, was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and given a report-back date of December 7, 2006. That advice proved useful in guiding how the Senate moved forward with that bill. March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1807

Colleagues, I have sat in this chamber when we have argued over language in bills that have forgotten to mandate that reports should be tabled in both houses of Parliament. 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? 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.

Time and time again, the Senate has identified issues in bills that were not contemplated by the other place because they were not studied. Time and time again, we have suggested changes and improvements to bills based on considered study and debate. Time and time again, the government has responded, “Thank you, but no thank you,” along with platitudes that eventually they will do something later on — later, but not now. Time and time again, 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. Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. Hon. Bernadette Clement: Would Senator Prosper consider taking a question? Hon. Paul (PJ) Prosper: Yes, I would. Senator Clement: Thank you, Senator Prosper. I so appreciated your speech. I have a very specific question.

Some of you may know that I spent some time in prisons last year talking about prisoners’ right to vote. Many of you probably know that prisoners cannot vote from the prison that they are in. They can’t use that address. They must use the address where they lived before committing the crime and before serving their sentence. In other words, they can’t vote from where they may have lived for a long period of time: the prison. They can’t then impact local elections and have access to local candidates. My question to you follows up Senator Dasko’s question to Senator Dalphond about the Canada Elections Act.

What if a senator — maybe me — might want to propose an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to bring in the right for a prisoner to vote from where they actually reside, their prison? Would you consider that type of amendment to be properly discussed in this Senate Chamber and in a Senate process? Would you think that that’s appropriate? Senator Prosper: Thank you so much for the question. I certainly believe it is within our constitutional duty to consider such a question, especially in light of what Senator Dasko has mentioned and the research provided by Senator McPhedran as well.

I certainly do believe it is within our constitutional competence to do such an amendment. Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, I want to thank colleagues, starting with Senator Moreau and, most recently, my colleague Senator Prosper, for their speeches on this bill.

Colleagues, I want to just read the last part of the message: . . . 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. I don’t see us as a thorn in the side of the House of Commons. We have a distinct constitutional role to represent voices that are not heard in the House of Commons, and on

Part 4 of Bill C-4, that is particularly important because it was not studied in committee in the House. Those voices were not heard. They were ignored in the House. So, to me, that fact makes it more important than ever that we did our job in the Senate, and I challenge that last part of the sentence as, in my mind, not being appropriate. Moreover, I have always respected Senator Tannas’s observation that our role is not to be an off-Broadway version of the House of Commons.

We have a distinct role that is separate from the House, and it is to make sure that voices are heard and that, as Parliament overall, we make a fulsome and clear-eyed decision on legislation. I think we did that job here, and I’m very proud of the job that we did here. Additionally, I am concerned that the House historically has not prioritized the passage of privacy bills. I will just cite Bill C-11 in 2020, Bill C-27 in 2021 and Bill C-65 in 2021. That makes our work even more important because the work has not been done in the House. As well, I still have no idea how Canadians benefit from

Part 4 of Bill C-4. It was important that we looked at it to see whether or not there were benefits or problems. The witnesses showed us that there were very serious concerns. It was not that we were stepping out of our lane; we were very much in our lane. All of those concerns related to the issue of privacy. I want to recognize the fact that the three political parties and the government have committed to bringing forward privacy provisions to the Canada Elections Act in this Parliament. I want to agree with Senator Dalphond that that’s a win for us. 1808 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Prosper ]

That’s not where we were at. We were fighting to get time to appropriately study this bill. In the end, it was six hours in one day. Senator Moreau, thank you for working with this chamber to make sure we had the opportunity to do our job. When we did our job, even the witnesses who were supporting

Part 4, the lawyers from the political parties, did an excellent job of arguing for our concerns, which we then put back to the House. They actually undermined their own position with the testimony, and I think that was, again, reflected. •

(1540) I remain concerned that there is a lack of appreciation of the fact that Canadians are completely unprotected as it relates to the growing risk around privacy and cybersecurity. Minister MacKinnon’s recent assurances in iPolitics that the Liberal Party “. . . essentially comply with PIPEDA. . .” don’t reflect the prioritization of this issue in our debates and our comments to the House. So I’m really hoping that that has been internalized in ways that are not evident in the message.

The other part that was really troubling to me was the fact that the lawyers testifying in the Legal Committee dismissed the issues raised by other witnesses by saying that they were “bogeyman” issues. That shows a level of disregard toward facts and toward reality that, again, is concerning. However, I hope that the parties have internalized our concerns and those raised by witnesses in committee in ways that are not necessarily evident in the message from the House.

There is another element that I think is perhaps evidence that the House did not understand the severity of this issue: They did not even hear from officers of Parliament whose job it is to manage the Canada Elections Act and our privacy policies in this country, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Privacy Commissioner. They did not even hear from those parliamentary experts; we did, and what we heard was very concerning. So, we were not a thorn in the side of the House of Commons; we were doing our job. It is a job that I think should have been done in the House.

If they had done it in the House and heard those things, we would have needed less time to look at this bill because we would have understood that the decision had been made clear-eyed. When they made the votes that Senator Housakos spoke of, I don’t know that it was. The point has been made by others that there were unanimous votes in the House.

But when MPs in the House had their chance to look at this issue on their own in 2018, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics a report that talked about threats to democracy from the misuse of privacy, the lack of privacy controls or restraints and the cybersecurity risks in a modern world. We are six years on from that. Our Legal Committee heard from a former information and privacy commissioner of the U.K. Again, I hope that these facts have been internalized by the three parties and by the government because I think that reality is troubling.

I don’t get a sense, again, from this message that is necessarily the case, but I will trust that it is. I will wrap up by saying that in anticipation of the bill that has been promised in this Parliament, I’m hoping it will be a stand- alone bill. I hope we’re not put in the same situation of it being tagged onto the end of a making life more affordable for Canadians act. The reality is we should have the opportunity to study this bill properly.

But in advance of that, I hope that our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will consider taking up the issue of studying political party privacy regimes around the world and hearing from the presidents and privacy officers of the political parties on why political party privacy regimes should be different. Let’s understand their assertion. We have heard from Minister MacKinnon that there are effectively no differences, but there is resistance to putting in place a PIPEDA-like regime. We have heard they are actually already operating in that manner. Well, let’s hear more about that.

Certainly, there is a lot of muddle in communication around this issue. I expect and believe that our political parties want to see Canadians as protected as voters in any other democracy around the world. The last thing I will say is that I believe we saw great progress in Budget 2025 in terms of the omnibus element of that bill. There were a lot fewer kitchen sinks put in Bill C-15 than we’ve seen in other bills in my time in the Senate. That was great progress, and I commend the government on that. Unfortunately, that has been undermined by what was done in Bill C-4.

I hope we are making our point — that we have a constitutional role to properly study legislation — and when you get something like

Part 4 slipped into something like Bill C-4, it really undermines our ability to do our job. In the future, I think we will be a little more of a stick-in-the-mud on this sort of issue because of how difficult it was to do our job in this situation. I will leave it there. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that I will be accepting this message from the House. I feel that we had a win here. I don’t think we would be at this point had we not done our job. That’s good for Canadians. I think we are doing a proper job in the Senate.

I think the very strategic amendment that we sent to them delivered what they wanted, and it delivered what we needed: privacy rights for Canadians. That is now coming back in a promise from the House. I trust they have internalized what we’ve all learned through this process and look forward to seeing an excellent piece of legislation come back to us within the next three years. Thank you, colleagues. Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. Hon. Paula Simons: I have a question for Senator Deacon, if he would take one. Senator C. Deacon: I say — with a quiver in my voice — yes.

Senator Simons: Having listened to all of the debate this afternoon and to your thoughtful speech, something interesting occurred to me: When you read the last part of the message that talked about this long-standing tradition, up until 10 years ago, this was a partisan house and most members of this chamber, though not all, would have been members of political parties. March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1809

Over the past 10 years, we have evolved to the point where the majority of people here are not affiliated with a political party and are nonpartisan. I’m curious to know if you think that changes the responsibility and the prerogative we have to question the way political parties run themselves. I think it is important to stress — as you and Senator Prosper did — that this is not a bill about the other place. This is a bill about parties, which are entities that exist in the wild as opposed to in the chamber.

I am curious whether you think being nonpartisan gives us a unique view of how parties regulate themselves — and perhaps an enhanced duty to critique the way parties as organizations operate — as opposed to what is happening in the other place. Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, Senator Simons, for your always thoughtful questions. In this situation, I go to my experience around this particular issue, be it two or three years ago — with Bill C-47 — or now. I have not met a Canadian who was initially aware that they do not have privacy protections as it relates to their voter data.

They are horrified when they learn that if they have any knowledge of the risks related to the issue of privacy. There are a lot of people who don’t care about it. They don’t necessarily understand how they are putting themselves at risk and don’t care. But I’ve not met anybody, period, who has understood this to be the case and been comfortable with it being the case. I have not heard from anyone like that, other than the three lawyers in our Legal Committee when I watched the proceedings on TV.

They are the only three people whom I have come across who firmly believe everything is just A-okay with it being as it is. •

(1550) So we are in a different world with an independent Senate. I think it is great that the government is bringing forward a review. I commend Senator Moreau and the Government Representative’s Office, or GRO, for doing that and looking at us 10 years on. But I think there is a place for us in this. There are a lot of traditions in Parliament that have not changed since 1867. One of them is how we vote in this chamber. It is the same as it was at Confederation. I think there are parliamentary traditions that need to evolve, but they need to be debated as they evolve.

Personally, I don’t think Canadians understand the realities of this issue. That, to me, suggests that this issue could end up undermining our political parties and our democracy if it is not managed more transparently in the future. So, for me, yes, I think there is a role for us. But we may have to fight for that role. Thank you. Senator Simons: Great answer. Hon. Krista Ross: Honourable senators, thank you for all of the excellent debate and interventions we’ve heard on the issues before us today.

I rise today to share a brief comment with my thoughts on the message that we’ve received from the House of Commons relating to the amendment to Bill C-4,

Part 4. The message we received from the other place states, “. . . Parliament should be the body that decides the rules that govern communication by federal parties with Canadians . . . .” However, the other place should remember that Parliament includes the Senate and not just the House of Commons. The received message also says: . . . there is a long tradition of the Senate deferring to the House of Commons on amendments to the Canada Elections Act . . . . While that may or may not be so, given what we have heard from Senator McPhedran and Senator Dasko, it does not negate the legislative powers that the Senate has. It is emphasized in the message from the House of Commons that

Part 4 of Bill C-4 received the unanimous support of all recognized parties in the House. Well, that is no surprise because it protects them from the rigour of rules like PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which all other organizations, businesses and not-for-profits must adhere to in the use of personal data. I believe there is a clear conflict of interest that members of Parliament belonging to political parties are legislating themselves out of a court case and out of the more rigorous oversight that everyone else must follow.

In my opinion, the case of unanimous consent does not hold as strong of an argument when it comes to a perceived conflict like this. As mentioned in the message received from the House of Commons, additional privacy provisions are coming in this parliamentary session. If I trust the government that they will bring forward privacy provisions in legislative changes to the Canada Elections Act in this Parliament, then I firmly believe that the sunset clause amendment we sent to the House is actually complementary to that. It does not constitute a reversal of the principle of the bill.

It is just a fail-safe to ensure the government actually does what they say they intend to do. My comments today do relate specifically to the message received from the House of Commons on the amendment that we made to

Part 4 of Bill C-4 and reflect what I believe to be my duty of working in the best interest of Canada and Canadians. Thank you. [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion? 1810 SENATE DEBATES March 12, 2026 [ Senator Simons ]

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed. An Hon. Senator: On division. (Motion agreed to, on division.) [English] ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE SENATE Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-12(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: third reading of Bill C-12, followed by second reading of Bill C-14, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

STRENGTHENING CANADA’S IMMIGRATION SYSTEM AND BORDERS BILL THIRD READING—DEBATE On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dean, seconded by the Honourable Senator Boehm, for the third reading of Bill C-12,

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, as amended. Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-12,

An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada’s borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. I intend to make the case for a simple improvement through introducing an amendment related to eligibility timelines for people claiming asylum. I am a senator who proudly represents my province of Nova Scotia and has the privilege of living in Mi’kma’ki. I have also lived and worked all over the world and am aware first-hand of the conditions of many asylum seekers.

My Mi’kmaq neighbours welcomed people from France, England, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, the Basque Country, people of African descent and many others seeking refuge and, with that, a better life, at various times over the last few centuries. Today there is a friendship — nitap — relationship between Peace by Chocolate, established by Syrian Canadian Tareq Hadhad, and Senator Prosper’s community of Paqtnkek. Canada, my province and our Indigenous hosts have been extending a warm welcome to people from other places for many years and many reasons.

This has contributed to our country’s prosperity and to our rich identity. Bill C-12 is an important bill that comes at an important time for Canada. It seeks to strengthen the security of Canada’s borders and points of entry. It seeks to disrupt transnational organized crime, including fentanyl trafficking and money laundering. It seeks to enhance the integrity, efficiency and credibility of Canada’s immigration and asylum systems. And it is designed to improve information sharing among federal, provincial and territorial partners.

These are all important for our country, for public safety, for public health and to ensure our highly valued immigration and asylum systems are operating in an optimal and fair manner. I would like to thank the bill’s sponsor, Senator Dean, for his thorough work on the bill and for his openness to discussions on concerns with the bill and ways it could be improved. I would also like to thank Senator Dhillon for doing an exemplary job as the Independent Senators Group’s legislative lead on this important piece of legislation.

Your speech and back- and-forth exchange with Senator Woo on Tuesday helped us to grasp the severity and urgency of dealing with organized crime, how certain elements of this bill will address this and how adjustments to other aspects of the bill will not take away from these important public safety measures. Senator Martin had wanted to raise a question yesterday about keeping the bill intact so that criminals, particularly those associated with transnational gangs involved in extortion, are not exploiting our system.

Senators Dhillon and Woo had clarified that clauses 37, 43 and 44 are the ones addressing extortion and that the minister is able to deem a claimant ineligible for asylum if criminality has been flagged no matter when the claimant initiated their process. I would also like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs and the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for your thorough work examining all aspects of this bill. Your work is essential and valued.

Colleagues, over the past weeks we have been having a healthy — in fact, for the last few minutes — and fruitful discussion on the role of the Senate and, in particular, our chamber’s role in relation to that of the House of Commons.

We have had discussions on what being a chamber of sober second thought means; about being both thorough and efficient; about restraint; about deference; about two-eyed seeing; about our special duty to represent the interests of those most vulnerable in our society and in our world and about how we do that; about balance and making sure that if we do support amendments to legislation, they are well thought through, based on evidence and don’t take away the bill’s ability to succeed in meeting its objectives. March 12, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1811

Colleagues, what I have observed in the debate on Bill C-12 and the amendments proposed to date is a combination of a recognition of the importance of representation and a commitment to rigour, to heeding the advice of a wide variety of credible expert witnesses, to fairness, to ensuring balance and, quite frankly, a very heavy dose of restraint. I say a “heavy dose of restraint” because every amendment we have considered was carefully crafted in order to keep all core elements of the original bill intact and has proposed balanced improvements.

In fact, the first recommendation of the report of the Social Affairs Committee’s study of the bill said: Your committee recommends that Bill C-12 be amended to remove parts 5 to 8. •

(1600) This recommendation would have caused the removal of those entire parts of Bill C-12, which amend the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Social Affairs Committee provided other recommendations in case that recommendation was not taken up by the National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs Committee — and it was not.

The amendment that I will be proposing for your consideration today is a modification of the committee’s Recommendation 8, which was to increase the ineligibility period for refugee claims from the one year indicated in Bill C-12 to five years from the most recent date of entry. Currently, for the In-Canada Asylum Program, there is no time limit for individuals making a refugee protection claim. Colleagues, we have heard that Canada has a backlog of applicants in its system that is estimated to be around 300,000 — there’s not much data available on what it is and why it is. It