Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Chipeur  Lawyer, As an Individual
Gaumond  Lawyer, As an Individual
Loewen  Harold Tanner Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Cornell University, As an Individual
Conacher  Co-founder, Board Member and Chairperson, Government Ethics Coalition, Democracy Watch
Ann Garnett  Class of 1965 Professor in Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Tenove  Assistant Director, Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, University of British Columbia, As an Individual

11:30 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Gerald Chipeur

It's not a 10% limit. In my view it's a 10% wide open train track. If you are a big organization with a lot of money, 10% is way more than $200. Therefore, if I am your average citizen and I have $200 to spend as a third party, I have to register, but if I have millions of dollars and I want to spend $200, I don't have to register, but the more important thing is where I got that $200. Basically, I can go around and get money from people who don't want their identity exposed through the registration process.

As a libertarian I might say that I don't think we should have that process, but we have it. If we're going to have it, then I think it should apply to everyone. Just because you're rich, you shouldn't be able to get around the requirement of telling the world that you gave a donation to participate in the political process.

Élisabeth Brière Liberal Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Thank you very much.

Once again, I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us.

Ms. Gaumond, I would like to go back to something that another witness, Mr. Chipeur, said earlier. With respect to the security of personal information, he said that nothing of concern had happened in that regard to date.

You mentioned the Cambridge Analytica affair, and the committee has also discussed the breach of elections data in Alberta.

Could you please comment on that briefly?

11:30 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

The Cambridge Analytica scandal clearly marked a turning point in the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers as to how they view online privacy. It led to privacy reforms, so I have trouble seeing how someone could claim that nothing has happened.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Thank you.

One of your recommendations pertains to—correct me if I have the wrong sections—sections 446.2, 446.3 and 446.4 of the Canada Elections Act, whereby the federal government is exonerated from the application of the various provincial laws. Some people might argue that, if the parties were subject to provincial laws, that would result in disparity in the treatment of the provinces in the case of a national party.

Can you give us the pros and cons and the primary drawbacks if parties were subject to provincial laws?

May 26th, 2026 / 11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

I think the ultimate objective would be to have a pan-Canadian regime that includes the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which is the law that applies to the private sector. That is not the case at present. In the meantime, I think the citizens of the various provinces must be allowed to exercise their privacy rights.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

If that were the case, might a party want to adopt an internal policy that is in line with that of the provinces with the strictest regime to ensure consistency right across Canada?

Could adopting a more rigorous internal policy to ensure compliance with the elections act have a collateral effect on repealing the section that exonerates parties from the application of provincial laws?

11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

Yes, definitely.

That is known around the world as the “Brussels effect”, whereby the general data protection regulations lead the rest of the world to adopt similar standards. The platforms actually wanted to comply without adopting a series of policies, so they all complied with the higher standards.

One can imagine something similar right now, such as a “British Columbia effect” or a “Quebec effect”.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Indeed, could you tell us in that regard about the provinces that have model internal policies?

You talked about Quebec's role. Can you outline what is being done in the provinces that would be a model to emulate?

11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

Right now, Quebec and British Columbia are the leaders in the protection of personal information. They are the provinces that have updated their legislation most recently.

I don't think it is a question of emulating their models, but rather of bringing things up to date and ensuring that the political parties are at least at the same level as all other Canadian organizations.

I think the bare minimum would be to simply respect the ten fair information principles, which include consent and need, among others. Some changes to the political parties' platforms would also be needed. So it is just a question of updating things.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Thank you.

Could you explain the potential impact of there not being any policy that applies to political parties and of asking more of them?

Is there transparency in what the political parties are putting in place?

Is there a risk of disparity among the various parties and the way they protect personal information internally?

What is the risk of not having a pan-Canadian policy or a requirement to comply with provincial policies?

11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

To some extent, it can lead to a race to the lowest common denominator. If political parties have policies that are less than optimal and less responsible for the protection of personal information but that provide some political advantage, that could lead other parties to set aside their values to derive the same benefits.

Having a basic standard is crucial. Otherwise, it will be a race to the lowest common denominator.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

If more stringent criteria were imposed on political parties, as has been done in Quebec and British Columbia, would that not entitle them to some kind of support?

For example, political parties might hope for support to implement their internal policies and to more effectively manage the data systems they use.

In your opinion, would that create a kind of right for political parties to claim support to update their approach?

11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

That is a good question. I don't know if that could really happen. If you mean financial support, I really have no idea.

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Actually, it might be more in terms of technical support.

11:35 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Eve Gaumond

That would probably be the case. It could also buy a good measure of trust. Voters might feel more comfortable providing their personal information if they know that it will be well protected, that it will be used correctly and what uses they have consented to. It is a question of having responsible policies.

To my mind, we have to get away from the idea that it is harmful to the parties. On the contrary, I think it can be beneficial for everyone.

The Chair Liberal Chris Bittle

Thank you so much.

It was so close. It was going to be the first time we were all under six minutes in the opening round. Christine is usually our best student and usually under six minutes. I'll strive to do better in the second round.

Next is Mr. Calkins for five minutes, please.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB

Thank you.

Mr. Chipeur, in your opening remarks you listed the four items you wanted to address. I think you had to stop your remarks after about the third one. I think the fourth one dealt with protecting freedom of expression. Did you want some more time to adequately address that?

11:40 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Gerald Chipeur

I don't, because I was able to slip it into my response to your colleague, Ms. Brière.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB

All right. I just wanted to make sure.

In your opening remarks, when you talked about the voters list, you suggested that the cure is worse than the disease. Would you elaborate on that, please?

11:40 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Gerald Chipeur

Well, all of those rules related to privacy are going to apply to all of you. You're putting handcuffs on yourselves. That's the first thing to keep in mind.

Second, freedom of expression in our Constitution has always been about political expression that is unlimited. Your ability to express yourself to all of your constituents could be severely hampered if we applied normal privacy considerations, because under normal privacy considerations, you can be blocked. They can say, “You can't talk to me. You can't send me an email. You can't call me.” To me, that is pretty close to a violation of not just the charter, but the whole idea of parliamentary government. The idea of our system is that everybody communicates on political matters, and no one is able to say, “I'm not playing. I'm not going to participate.” Therefore, I don't think that privacy laws should apply in the political realm.

If privacy laws are going to apply, they certainly have to apply in the same way at the federal level. We can't have the provinces involved. It would be a disaster if you allowed the provincial laws to apply, so it has to be federal. However, I recommend that there be none. There's no need. Think about it: Thousands and thousands of people, using those lists, go door to door, knocking on doors to ask people to vote for their favourite candidate. I think this concern in Alberta is way overblown. There is no problem with people communicating with other people and people knowing names and addresses, because it's out there. You can get it from so many different sources.

The important information to protect is how you vote in the ballot box. The Chief Electoral Officer does a very good job of protecting that information. Beyond that, I don't think there's anything that needs to be protected.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB

Thank you very much.

Moving on to your third item, you talked about a different proposal for the ballot. I wasn't quite sure I understood what you were talking about. Are you talking about a two-option ballot where you can vote for either the party or the individual? Could you explain to me why you would change it and put the party names first? I want some clarity on that.

11:40 a.m.

Lawyer, As an Individual

Gerald Chipeur

The first reason is that parties have been regulated and are what make our parliamentary system work. They are heavily regulated and are provided for in the legislation.

My idea is that you list the parties—maybe in alphabetical order; it doesn't matter—and then an individual can choose a party. The ballot would have the name of the candidate and the party. Then that would just rotate through each ballot. It gets a different one at the top, and it rotates. It's the first thing you see on the ballot. You can ignore that. You might say, “I don't want to vote for any of the parties. I hate political parties. I'm going down to the list of independents.”

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Blaine Calkins Conservative Ponoka—Didsbury, AB

They would appear below.