Senate Debates — 26 February 2026 (Sitting 54, 36th Parliament, 3rd Session)

2026-02-26 / Sitting 054 / 36-3 / E

Senate Debates

DEBATES OF THE SENATE 1st SESSION • 45th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 154 • NUMBER 54 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, February 26, 2026 The Honourable RAYMONDE GAGNÉ, Speaker

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 in the chair. Prayers. SENATORS’ STATEMENTS SITUATION IN CUBA Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, there is a tragedy unfolding a few hours’ flight from our borders. It is a crisis that is as much a humanitarian catastrophe as it is a damning indictment of a failed, brutal ideology. The situation in Cuba has collapsed. It has deteriorated to levels never seen before. While the regime in Havana points its fingers everywhere but at itself, let us be clear: The primary inflictor of suffering on the Cuban people is the Cuban regime.

For 67 years, democracy has been buried. In its place is a machine of repression. It jails citizens for the crime of demanding bread. It crushes dissent to protect a corrupt elite. While ordinary Cubans stand in mile-long lines for a handful of rice, the generals and party bureaucrats grow wealthy off the very shortages they created. They have turned a once-vibrant nation into a prison. They sustain it through a dark web of alliances with Russia, China and Venezuela, powers that view the Cuban people as nothing more than a strategic soft underbelly for geopolitical games.

Honourable senators, we must look in the mirror as Canadians. We may want to talk about this now due to anti-American sentiment, but where have these voices been for the past 67 years? Our hearts shouldn’t bleed for the Cuban people only when it is politically convenient. Every winter, thousands of Canadians flock to what are undoubtedly the most beautiful beaches in the world. At what cost, honourable senators? We must call out the travel operators who bury their heads in the sand for profit. They sell a dream while ignoring a nightmare.

While Canadians sip cocktails in guarded enclaves, the waiter serving them cannot find milk for his children. Those vacation dollars do not reach the Cuban people. They flow directly into the regime’s pockets, the military conglomerate that funds the very boots on the necks of dissidents. We have heard the warnings. Many brave Cubans who fled that repression have walked the halls of this very Parliament. They come here to caution us, to educate us and to testify that the regime’s reach does not end at the Straits of Florida.

They are first-hand witnesses to a repression that shadows them even here on Canadian soil. It might be impossible to reason with a regime that views its own people as enemies of the state, but we can hope that those of us in this chamber and beyond, empowered to use our voices, are brave enough to stand on the right side of history. It is time for the Canadian government and our businesses to stop propping up this brutal regime.

Let’s stop business as usual and start backing the Cuban people directly through civil society and their own emerging private sector, not just now when it suits political expediency as anti-Americanism is being wielded as a shield. We need to restore promise and hope for the Cuban people through our democratic values and free enterprise. If I happened to encounter the Cuban Ambassador, I would plead for him to take a simple message back to his regime: The people of Cuba deserve the freedom and dignity they have been denied for far too long. The world is watching, and the time for silence and acquiescence is over.

Thank you, colleagues. INUIT NUNANGAT UNIVERSITY Hon. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Honourable senators, today I rise to speak about a turning point in our national story: the creation of Inuit Nunangat University. This will be the first Inuit‑led, Inuit-governed university in our country’s history. For generations, Inuit students seeking higher education have left their homes to travel south, often at great personal sacrifice. Now a university will be built in the North by Inuit and be grounded in Inuit language, knowledge systems, experiences, traditions and values.

Located in Arviat, Nunavut — my home community — this university will serve all of Inuit Nunangat, our homeland, which spans nearly one third of Canada’s land mass and over 70% of its coastline. Let us appreciate what that means: This is not a regional initiative. It is nation building. At a time when the Arctic is at the forefront of global attention — as sea ice recedes, shipping routes expand and global interest intensifies — Canada’s sovereignty cannot rely on geography alone. Sovereignty lives in people, thriving communities, strong institutions and self-governance.

A university in the Arctic strengthens all of these. This university will help to preserve and revitalize Inuktitut. It will support Arctic research grounded in generations of Inuit knowledge. It will build up our population’s capacity for economic growth, stability and an opportunity to govern ourselves. I would like to note that this university has been made possible because of the leadership at Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. As the driving force behind this initiative, in collaboration with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Canada, they demonstrate that reconciliation is not a gesture.

It is the transfer of authority. It is the building of Inuit-led institutions. It is a sustained commitment backed by resources and respect. 1604 THE SENATE Thursday, February 26, 2026

This university is a testament to our country’s commitment to support the self-determination of the Inuit. It is an affirmation that the future of Canada’s Arctic will continue to be shaped by the people who call it their home. Thousands of years of Inuit excellence have made this possible. Let history record that we did not hesitate, that we recognized the moment and that together we chose to build an institution worthy of the North and worthy of Canada. Matna. VISITORS IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr.

Margot Burnell and Dr. Bolu Ogunyemi, President and President-Elect of the Canadian Medical Association. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Ince. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! BLACK HISTORY MONTH Hon. Tony Ince: Honourable senators, as colleagues have noted, this year marks 30 years since Black History Month received national recognition in Canada. However, in Nova Scotia, it has been observed since 1988, and nearly 60% of African Nova Scotians can trace their roots in our province back three generations or more.

That is to say: Black history in Canada is not recent history; it is foundational. As we come to the close of Black History Month, I want to highlight some special moments from this month. The Halifax Black Film Festival celebrated its tenth anniversary this year, sharing powerful stories of who we are and creating visions about whom we can become. I have learned about the work of Black filmmakers who challenged narratives of shame surrounding our heritage and turned them into pride in exactly who we are, right down to the texture of our hair. •

(1340) I also spoke to high school students from Island View High School, including many African-Nova Scotian youth. Their questions about democracy were thoughtful and bold, and each of them showed leadership potential. Our responsibility is to make sure they understand our institutions and have opportunities to become involved. Today, in our gallery, we are honoured to welcome the president-elect of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Boluwaji Ogunyemi. Raised in Newfoundland and Labrador, he graduated high school in a class of nearly 600 students as the only Black student. Dr.

Ogunyemi went on to become the first Black student from the province to train and study at Memorial University’s faculty of medicine. And now, in its 158-year history, he is the first — and the youngest — Black president of the Canadian Medical Association. Colleagues, it is an honour to be the first. But being the first often carries an invisible weight — the weight of representation, expectation and knowing that your success will open or close doors for others.

As Black History Month comes to a close, I hope we can commit throughout the year to learning, listening and building a country where being the first is no longer remarkable because opportunity is no longer rare. May those who are the first be leaders for future generations so that the next generation can reach excellence, not despite barriers, but without them. Thank you, meegwetch, wela’lioq. VISITORS IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Rodrigo Malmierca Díaz, Ambassador of the Republic of Cuba to Canada.

He is accompanied by Dany Tur de la Concepción, Deputy Head of Mission, and Mariset Vazquez Lissabet, First Secretary. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator White. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! CANADA-CUBA RELATIONS Hon. Judy A. White: Honourable senators, I rise today to reflect positively on the long-standing relationship between Canada and Cuba. As we speak, Cuba is facing severe shortages of food, fuel, medicine and electricity. Hospitals struggle to maintain basic services. Families endure prolonged blackouts.

Essential goods are rationed. Sanitation services and basic public infrastructure have been severely disrupted. The increasingly limited access to essential supplies has placed additional pressure on families. These growing hardships have caused unimaginable suffering for seniors, children and individuals with chronic health conditions. The contributing factors are complex and include structural economic vulnerabilities, global supply chain disruptions and limited access to international financing.

With decades of U.S. embargoes and the most recent measure to block oil from entering the country, the situation has worsened. The United Nations has warned that Cuba could face a humanitarian collapse, with millions suffering if basic fuel needs are not met. Francisco Pichon, the most senior United Nations February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1605

official in Cuba, described, “. . . a mix of resilience, but also grief, sorrow and indignation, and some concern about the regional developments.” Canada has maintained uninterrupted diplomatic relations with Cuba since 1945. Over the last eight decades — 80 years — our two countries have fostered a relationship built on dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation, even during times of global change and uncertainty. We are one of Cuba’s long-standing trading partners and a significant source of tourism and investment.

Nearly 1 million Canadians visit Cuba every year, and our countries have significant commercial and cultural ties. In this period of extraordinary hardship, Canada must stand in solidarity with the Cuban people. Now is our time to work with multilateral partners, such as the United Nations and the World Food Programme, to ensure that aid reaches vulnerable populations and essential services are stabilized. This moment is not about choosing sides in ideological debates. It is about choosing humanity.

At its core, this issue is about people and families seeking stability and basic needs and seizing the opportunity to move forward with dignity. Canada’s role should remain grounded in humanitarian principles, constructive engagement, open dialogue and a focus on practical solutions. Thank you, Your Excellency, for being here. Wela’lin. Thank you. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear. VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Chris Tooriram, who is the winner of this year’s HIV Is Not a Crime Leadership Award.

He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Wells (Alberta). On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! BLACK HISTORY MONTH Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise today to celebrate Black History Month, or as we call it in Nova Scotia, African Heritage Month. We have marked this important month for 30 years now. This year, we are honouring Black Brilliance, and we are fortunate to be surrounded by the Black brilliance of our Senate colleagues, including two from my province of Nova Scotia, Senators Wanda Thomas Bernard and Tony Ince.

Today, I also ask you to celebrate two other brilliant African- Nova Scotians George Elliott Clarke and Viola Desmond. George Elliott Clarke, former poet laureate of Toronto, former parliamentary poet laureate, professor of English at the University of Toronto and former political staffer to M.P. Howard McCurdy, was born in Windsor, Nova Scotia and raised in Halifax. Viola Desmond, also from Nova Scotia, depicted on the Canadian 10-dollar bill, showed her brilliance and civil rights leadership in a movie theatre in New Glasgow and later in a court of law.

To honour them both and all Black brilliance and leadership in Canada, I will read you George’s poem on Viola. Witness for Viola Desmond That affray was cinematic— stark black and polar white, eh? The usher and the cop grappled the flailing beautician as if they were morticians desperate to claim Christ’s cadaver. . . .

The trio—all as disorganized as is shaking— manhandled the struggling lady across the accidental, immediate theatre displaying posters for Coming Attractions— plus black-and-white snaps of the Now Showing marquee features— plus ads for Hot Buttered Popcorn and Ice-Cold Soda— and past the concession stand and the ticket seller’s booth— right on out into the November eve— maple leaves driving at Viola like ruddy arrow-heads— to bank her into the drunk tank. Her crime?

She’d sallied forth undramatically to feel jolly viewing Hollywood fare via a Bluenose, New Glasgow picture-show, but had plunked—buff-coloured, sepia-toned— in a Whites Only seat, and chose to remain after being informed of her faux pas. So, what’s-his-face, that farce, dialled up a constable— in a by-play show-piece of tragicomic Disgrace— to frog-march Viola summarily to the Town Gaol for disrupting Jim Crow, that pasty-faced minstrel aping blind-lady Justice.

But Viola’s incarceration canonized her, marked her investiture in the Pantheon of Liberators alongside Nanny-of-the Maroons, Harriet Tubman, Josephine Baker, Rosa Parks— she— A First (Canuck) among Black Equals. 1606 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026 [ Senator White ]

[Translation] VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Charles Forest, Director of Commercial Relations at Revizto. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Forest. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear! • (1350) [English] COURTNEY SARAULT CONGRATULATIONS ON OLYMPIC SILVER AND BRONZE MEDALS Hon.

Dawn Arnold: Honourable senators, I rise today to celebrate the pride of Moncton, New Brunswick, Courtney Sarault, whose performance at the 2026 Olympic Games has inspired not only our city and province but all of Canada. [Translation] One in five of the medals Canada brought home from the Milano Cortina Olympic Games were won by a single athlete, Moncton’s own Courtney Sarault. Only one other Canadian Olympic athlete has won as many medals at a single edition of the Olympics. Courtney is the first Canadian from outside Quebec to win an individual medal in seven disciplines.

Her silver medal for the women’s 1,000 metres is only the third medal Canada has ever won in this event. [English] Courtney’s dedication and excellence have been recognized on the world’s greatest stage, where she captured four Olympic medals: two silver and two bronze. These medals reflect not only Courtney’s remarkable talent, but also her perseverance, spirit and commitment to excellence.

While Courtney had the entire nation behind her, and definitely all Monctonians, I would like to offer a special thank you to her parents, Rhonda and Yves, and her brother, Chris, for their support and encouragement of and sacrifices for Courtney’s journey. Their unwavering belief in Courtney has helped shape a champion who represents the best of Canadian sport. Courtney has made history, inspired young athletes in Moncton and across our country and reminded us all that with passion and perseverance, anything is possible.

We celebrate her extraordinary achievements and look forward to cheering her on for many years to come. I’m particularly impressed by Courtney’s dedication to giving back to her community and inspiring so many other young people to reach for their dreams. Thank you. VISITOR IN THE GALLERY The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Chimwemwe Undi, Parliamentary Poet Laureate. She is my guest. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada. Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS THE ESTIMATES, 2026-27 MAIN ESTIMATES TABLED Hon. Iris G. Petten (Acting Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Main Estimates for the year 2026-27. [Translation] BILL TO AMEND THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, THE ELECTRICITY AND GAS INSPECTION ACT, THE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES REGULATIONS AND THE ELECTRICITY AND GAS INSPECTION REGULATIONS FOURTH REPORT OF BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY COMMITTEE PRESENTED Hon.

Clément Gignac, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report: Thursday, February 26, 2026 The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its FOURTH REPORT Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-3,

An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations, has, in obedience to the order of reference of November 27, 2025, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment. Respectfully submitted, CLÉMENT GIGNAC Chair February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1607

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time? (On motion of Senator Varone, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.) [English] THE ESTIMATES, 2026-27 NOTICE OF MOTION TO AUTHORIZE NATIONAL FINANCE COMMITTEE TO STUDY MAIN ESTIMATES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF VOTE 1 TO BE STUDIED BY JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT Hon. Iris G.

Petten (Acting 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 the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1; That, for the purpose of this study, the committee have the power to meet, even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, and that rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) be suspended in relation thereto; That the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in Library of Parliament Vote 1 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027; and That, in relation to the expenditures set out in Library of Parliament Vote 1, a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

QUESTION PERIOD NATURAL RESOURCES LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it looks as if Senator Moreau was partially right yesterday. It appears your government does see a business case for LNG, or liquefied natural gas, exports. The only problem is that it is not one for Canadian jobs and Canadian exports. Shortly after I questioned your decade-long dismissal of Canada’s LNG potential, we learned that we are now importing LNG from Australia, just next door.

Senator Moreau, let me remind you that Canada sits on one of the world’s largest LNG reserves, yet your government would rather import LNG from 16,000 miles away than invest in our own natural resources here in Canada. Is this the trade diversification business case your government has been promising and lauding: Prosperity and jobs for other countries but unemployment and hopelessness for Canadians here at home? An Hon. Senator: Terrible. An Hon. Senator: Shame. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Your résumé of my answer is a little short, Senator Housakos.

Canada seeks to diversify trade relationships. The government recognizes it has an opportunity to play a strategic role in the world’s evolving energy mix. If the demand and infrastructure are there, the federal government will work to get Canadian products to market. However, as far as I know, and it may be that you have other information, there is so far no willingness from the private sector to finance infrastructure concerning LNG. Senator Housakos: Senator Moreau, please — that answer just doesn’t add up.

You know very well that both domestic and foreign investment will go where investors see a comfortable place for it. •

(1400) The Prime Minister of Italy, the Prime Minister of Greece, the Chancellor of Germany and all of the European leaders have been saying that they need Canadian liquefied natural gas, or LNG. They’ve been coming to Ottawa, visiting the old Liberal government while on their knees begging for LNG. Now to say that there’s no international investment and no will to come to Canada — no, there isn’t because you haven’t created the preconditions necessary by getting rid of the red tape. Senator Moreau: That is inaccurate. The major project is exactly for that kind of perspective.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, Canada seeks to diversify trade relations. The government has an opportunity to play a strategic role in the world’s evolving energy mix, and if the demand and infrastructure are there, the federal government will work to bring Canadian products to market. This is a clear declaration, I think. FINANCE POVERTY LEVELS Hon.

Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): The greatest indictment of this government’s failure to build our natural resources within the economy is in UNICEF’s most recent report card on child and family poverty, which reveals that more than 30,000 additional children in Canada are living below the poverty line — a staggering child poverty rate of 26%. Under your new and old Liberal governments, Senator Moreau, child poverty has risen for the third consecutive year and remains alarmingly higher than Canada’s overall poverty rate, which is 1608 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026

pretty bad. Worse yet, at your government’s current pace, it would take nearly 400 years to eradicate child poverty in this once great country. Your government has already eradicated the hope of safer communities, affordable housing and stable paycheques for young adults. What assurances can you offer to Canadian children to reassure them that your government is not going to do the same for their future? It’s shameful that Canada stands so low when it comes to child poverty around the world. Senator Martin: Shame. Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): What is shameful is you are rising here to ask that kind of question when Conservatives in the other place are voting against any measure proposed by the government to help the children of Canada. As a matter of fact, making the National School Food Program permanent would provide school meals for up to 400,000 children each year. Your friend in the other place voted against it. That is shameful.

Senator Housakos: Senator Moreau, I remind you that the other place has been consistently run by majority and minority parliaments of Liberal governments for at least over a decade. According to UNICEF, Canada’s child welfare has been eroding significantly since 2017. That’s nine years despite the many empty promises and inflationary spending of your government. With more children falling below the poverty line on the government’s watch for a decade, it’s really cheap to start blaming the opposition — which has been on the opposition benches — for your failures in government. Senator Martin: That’s right.

Senator Moreau: What is cheap is asking a question and wrapping yourself in a veil of purity when you vote against any measures that are proposed by the government to help children in Canada. This is shameful, sir. [Translation] EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT FORCED ADOPTIONS Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Senator Moreau, my question is on the cruel practice of forced adoptions in Canada from 1945 to 1971. More than 300,000 unmarried Canadian women were cruelly separated from their babies.

Canada is not the only country that treated unmarried mothers this way, but unlike Australia, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, the Government of Canada has yet to formally apologize. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology conducted a study in 2018 and recommended a formal apology, because that is important in helping survivors heal. Senator Moreau, these mothers, whose lives were changed forever, are starting to run out of time — The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Petitclerc. I will ask Senator Moreau to try to answer the question. Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I understand the question. Senator Petitclerc, I appreciate your sincerity in raising issues as important as this one, in stark contrast to the debate in which the chamber was previously engaged during question period. The government is cognizant of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology’s report on the forced adoptions of the babies of unmarried mothers in post-war Canada. It recognizes the importance of this matter. You’re right: No apology was ever made, and the government acknowledges that.

I will bring your question to the minister’s attention and convey your interest in an official apology and in ensuring the government acts on the committee’s recommendations. Senator Petitclerc: Thank you, Senator Moreau. With all due respect, I urge you to be forceful. Many of these women had the courage to appear before the committee and share their story with us. Some have stayed in touch with me, with some of my colleagues and with our former colleague, Senator Eggleton. At the very least, these women deserve an answer to my question.

Senator Moreau: Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention, senator. I don’t have many years of experience in the Senate and even less in the role that I hold today, because I was appointed to this position after I arrived in the Senate. This is the kind of issue that received extensive prior consideration in committee. Thank you for bringing this file to my attention. In return, I can assure you that I will pass the Senate’s message on to the government. [English] INDUSTRY INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE Hon. Tony Loffreda: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Moreau, much of the government’s economic agenda, whether on housing, internal trade or affordability, depends not only on policy design but also on effective and timely implementation. Canadians are increasingly concerned about delays, overlapping jurisdictions and uneven results across regions. Could you clarify what concrete steps are being taken to improve execution and coordination with provinces and territories to ensure that announced measures translate into real, measurable outcomes on the ground?

How is the government addressing bottlenecks that may be slowing progress, and what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that commitments made to Canadians are actually delivered within expected timelines? February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1609

Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question, Senator Loffreda. Whether it is supporting workers and businesses, fast-tracking major projects or reducing internal trade barriers, the government is working directly with premiers to ensure measures translate into tangible outcomes on the ground. The government is also attacking bottlenecks head-on. For example, the “one project, one review” approach will reduce duplication, improve coordination and provide greater certainty so that projects move forward more effectively.

The government was elected to deliver measurable progress while lowering costs, increasing productivity and making our economy more competitive, all while ensuring commitments are implemented in a timely and accountable way. It intends to do that. Senator Loffreda: Thank you for that response. It’s great to hear that. I hope the execution is there on a timely basis. Can you provide a specific example where improved federal-provincial coordination has recently accelerated results?

And where progress is lagging, what corrective actions are being taken to get initiatives back on track and ensure Canadians see timely benefits? Senator Moreau: One clear example is the government working with the provinces and territories to reduce internal trade barriers, which has the potential to lower prices by up to 15%, boost productivity by up to 7% and add up to $200 billion to the Canadian economy.

At the same time, through “one project, one review,” the government is already improving coordination to accelerate major projects while maintaining strong environmental standards and respecting — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Hon. Robert Black: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Moreau, on January 23, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced the closure of three research and development centres and four satellite research farms.

This includes the 119‑year-old research facility in Lacombe, Alberta. Since this announcement, many stakeholders have contacted my office to express their concerns that these closures will create unintended short-term and long-term consequences with far-reaching effects on our country. Like them, I’m concerned that your government is once again turning a blind eye to the significant role that research, development and innovation play in the success of our agricultural sector. •

(1410) Canada is fortunate to have a robust agricultural sector, with a strong and reliable reputation both domestically and internationally. Research, development and innovation are critical to our country’s competitiveness. We should be strengthening these areas, not scaling them back. Senator Moreau, I know your government is looking for cutbacks. Please tell us how you might make changes to ensure that imperative research is undertaken. Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, Senator Black, and for your restless interest in the agricultural sector.

To the industry, which is listening, as well, let me be clear: Science and innovation will continue to be at the core of Canada’s agricultural success. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada will remain the largest agricultural research organization in the country, with a strong presence in every province. The government has taken an approach where it will be streamlining operations and reducing overhead so that more dollars are directed to the science, innovation and supports that producers rely upon. This process is being approached carefully.

Nothing is closing overnight, and the government will continue to work closely with communities, industry partners and employees, who will be retained, reassigned or relocated. Senator Black: Thank you. “Restless” — I like that word. Senator Moreau, to quote the Prime Minister, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. . . .” The closure of these research centres and satellite farms will have long-term consequences that could undermine our agriculture industry.

When will your government realize the essential role that agriculture plays in our country’s prosperity and long-term stability and start to build the sector up instead of cutting it back? What will you do? Senator Moreau: The government has maintained research capacity across the country, ensuring producers continue to benefit from strong, science-based supports. Senator, protecting Canada’s food security and sovereignty is precisely why the government is focusing resources where they will have the greatest impacts on research and development, which is front-line research and innovation.

By trending toward a more efficient and collaborative research system, Canada is positioning its agricultural sector to remain competitive, resilient and secure for the long term. 1610 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026

JUSTICE HIV NON-DISCLOSURE Hon. Kristopher Wells: This Saturday, February 28, marks international HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day. As documented in the recent report on HIV in Canada led by Senator Cormier, Canada continues to have among the harshest laws criminalizing individuals who do not disclose their HIV status. Individuals can face serious jail time and lifelong consequences, even when there has been no transmission of the virus and even when they have taken steps to make that transmission impossible.

This approach not only disproportionately punishes vulnerable people; it also undermines public health by discouraging individuals from getting tested and knowing their status. Nearly eight years ago, the government recognized the need for Criminal Code reform to address this injustice, yet no legislation has been introduced. Senator Moreau, will the government today renew its commitment to reforming Canada’s laws on HIV non-disclosure? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for that important question.

The government recognizes that the current approach to HIV non-disclosure has had serious and harmful consequences, including stigma and negative public health impacts. In 2018, the Attorney General issued a directive limiting prosecutions in cases where individuals have taken appropriate steps to prevent transmission. That is why the government launched public consultations in 2022 to examine potential reforms. Canada publicly endorses the science behind “Undetectable = Untransmittable,” and the law must reflect modern science, fairness and sound public health evidence.

The Government of Canada will continue working with partners and stakeholders to ensure our justice system is rooted in compassion, evidence and equity. Senator K. Wells: Thank you for that detailed response. As you mentioned, there is clear scientific consensus that “Undetectable = Untransmittable.” Advocates, legal experts and civil society members are eager to move forward with much- needed reforms.

Senator Moreau, given these long-standing commitments and the need to align our laws with modern science and sound public health evidence, will the current government commit today to supporting legislation to reform Canada’s criminal laws on HIV non-disclosure before the end of this year? Senator Moreau: As you know, Senator Wells, I cannot speculate on the timing of potential legislation or future government business.

What I can say is that the government has acknowledged the need for reform, has taken concrete interim steps to limit harmful prosecutions and remains actively engaged with experts and community leaders on a path forward. IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT RESIDENCE PATHWAYS Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Moreau, on Tuesday, we marked the fourth solemn anniversary of Putin’s brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Senator Kutcher recently asked you a few times during Question Period about Ukrainian war refugees seeking to gain permanent residency in Canada.

Each time, you responded that you would raise the issue with Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Lena Diab. Three weeks ago, you even declared that the minister was “. . . aware of the issue, and she is actively participating in . . .” finding a solution. However, Minister Diab has seemingly gone AWOL on this. She hasn’t met in person with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress since becoming the minister last May.

This minister was quoted on Tuesday as saying that the Ukrainian permanent residency issue “. . . is not something I’m aware of.” Senator Moreau, either you’re not representing the views of senators to your Carney government or this inept Liberal immigration minister is ignoring you. Which is it? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Batters, 50% of my job is representing the government here in the Senate, but the other 50% of my job is to represent the Senate with the government. I take both very seriously.

I can assure you that when I make commitments in this chamber to make representations to the government, I do so as soon as I can. I hope that you believe me when I say that’s my pledge regarding what I have to do in this chamber, and that’s what I’m doing on a daily basis after Question Period. Senator Batters: I guess you should find out what’s going on with the immigration minister. You’d have a better chance of being heard by this minister if you and your group were members of the national Liberal caucus.

You could raise these issues weekly at caucus meetings with the immigration minister in the presence of the Prime Minister. Will you admit that this non-partisan Senate charade undermines senators presenting important issues to the government and is to the disadvantage of Canadians? Senator Moreau: I asked Senator Housakos last week to be invited to your national caucus because there are a lot of messages I’m giving to you that are obviously not being forwarded to it. I don’t think that being part of a national caucus has anything to do with the tragedy that the Ukrainian people are living through these days.

February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1611

FINANCE COST OF LIVING Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Senator Moreau, recent reports from Equifax Canada and TransUnion Canada show that Canadian household debt has climbed to a record high of $2.6 trillion, driven by soaring mortgage balances even as housing affordability remains out of reach for many families. Mortgage debt alone is approaching $2 trillion, with many facing payment shock at renewal, and rising non-mortgage delinquencies signal stress across households.

Would you agree that, over the past decade, your government’s policies have left Canadians dangerously over-leveraged and financially vulnerable in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis marked by food insecurity, job instability and growing hopelessness among young families? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): The government has recognized that affordability is of the utmost importance for Canadians, and that’s why it has acted accordingly. You’re talking about households. We are now seeing that household disposable incomes are rising.

It’s not the government saying that; it’s the Bank of Canada. Housing markets are easing in Toronto, as well as in Vancouver, where you are from. The government’s work does not stop here. More measures to stop the affordability crisis are on their way, including Bill C-4, which cuts the GST for first-time homebuyers; Bill C-15, which invests $57 billion in affordable child care, and which your party voted against in the other place; and Bill C-20, which invests $13 billion for new housing, facilitating access to benefits through a new automatic federal benefits system. These are concrete measures.

You must admit that these measures exist and are there to help Canadians. •

(1420) Senator Martin: The reality in Vancouver is that costs have risen so far. They may have decreased, but it is still absolutely unaffordable. I know that from my own daughter, who is in Vancouver. The debt burden is growing, and younger Canadians shoulder mounting pressure from both housing costs and essential living expenses. When mortgage debt surpasses $2 trillion and families are choosing between groceries and housing, why should hard‑working Canadians believe the government’s economic policies are protecting families from falling deeper into financial peril?

Senator Moreau: It is because the question of affordability has been tackled by the government on many fronts. We lowered taxes for 22 million Canadians. We are cutting the consumer carbon tax. We are protecting Pharmacare, dental care and child care. We are lowering requirements to access the Disability Tax Credit. We are providing immediate relief on groceries. We are investing in housing projects across the country. Affordability is a multi-faceted question, and the government is working on every one of them. HOUSING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES AFFORDABLE HOUSING Hon.

Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have another very important question. According to a recent report by the Building Industry and Land Development Association, new home sales in the Greater Toronto Area — another very unaffordable market — had their worst month on record, with only 269 homes sold. Now there is another issue. This is sending a chilling signal to the region’s homebuilding industry, which is still reeling from 2025, its worst year on record. Experts are warning that the situation is poised to worsen. Yet, your government’s response is not only too slow; it is inefficient.

What tangible relief can Canadians expect from your government, beyond announcements and the creation of yet another bureaucracy? Hon. Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I think that Senator Batters was satisfied with my previous answer. That’s why you have the next question.

In housing, with respect to new building projects, in the Atlantic, we are investing $443 million to build or renew 3,800 homes; in British Columbia, $2.3 billion to build or renew 8,867 homes; in Ontario, $3.2 billion for 30,000 homes; in the Prairies, $878 million for 10,000 homes; in Quebec, $2.8 billion for 4,810 homes; and in the North, $132 million has been invested to build or renew 1,186 units. We are working on housing. We are doing more than just making declarations. We are investing, and it shows everywhere in the country from coast to coast to coast.

Senator Martin: For the record, we are never satisfied with your answers, Senator Moreau, but I know you’re doing your best. The solution is not more bureaucracy. At the pace of your new agency, by the time a single home is completed, there may no longer be a viable private homebuilding industry left to sustain. If your current approach is clearly falling short, why not try something different, like honouring your election promise to reduce development charges by 50%? That’s a huge issue.

Senator Moreau: Senator Martin, the reason why you don’t accept my answers is because your party is focused on delivering emotionally driven political rhetoric, which is, frankly, irresponsible in a situation of crisis. The government is investing exactly where you asked them to invest, and, at the same time, you’re not satisfied with what it is doing. Honestly, I don’t know what would satisfy you, but it seems that what we’re doing is satisfying the Canadian public largely — 1612 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026

[Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau. Now we’ll go to Senator Housakos. [English] FINANCE AFFORDABILITY FOR CANADIANS Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, we’ve recently seen a report from the G7 that Canada has the highest food inflation in the world by miles. You like to steal our ideas on the eve of an election, like getting rid of the carbon tax and lowering capital gains. We’re begging you to do this before the next election and give some reprieve to Canadians who are suffering at the grocery stores. Will you please get rid of the industrial carbon tax?

That would allow Canadians to get cheaper food. Will you put into place some fiscal guardrails to allow the Canadian dollar to gain some momentum again, as it is costing a fortune for importers to bring in food? When will your government understand that your policy of creating a weak dollar and your policy of allowing the carbon tax to pummel the agriculture industry are showing up at the grocery stores? As a result, we have the world’s highest food inflation growth amongst the G7 countries. The report came out this morning. I invite you to read it. Hon.

Pierre Moreau (Government Representative in the Senate): I have an occasion to tell you, Senator Housakos, that, for almost two years, inflation has remained within the Bank of Canada’s target. It was 2.3% in January, and now interest rates are stabilizing at 2.25%. The government is working on inflation. It’s working on creating new jobs for Canadians. It’s working on fiscal responsibility. It’s working on affordability. I provided many measures in response to Senator Martin’s question, and you’re not satisfied. The problem is that I don’t know what would satisfy you.

Whenever there’s a measure of affordability in the other place, your colleagues in the national caucus vote against those measures. Senator Housakos: Pretty soon, you’re going to be blaming the Diefenbaker government for all of the faults of today. In reality, interest rates are going down, Senator Moreau, because the economy is contracting. I am not talking about interest rates in a contracting economy. I’m talking about child poverty that has reached historic levels. I’m talking about food banks with people lined up around the corners.

I’m talking about poverty levels we have never before seen in a country like Canada. I’m simply asking, will you get rid of the industrial carbon tax and put into place fiscal guardrails? Those two simple things can easily be done to give reprieve to people going — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Housakos. [English] Senator Moreau: The only person bringing up the Diefenbaker government is you with every single question you’re asking. There is a new government that was elected about 10 months ago. Come and bring yourself up to par, and we’ll see what the question will be.

For child care, I repeat what I have already said to Senator Martin: We’re working on it. You don’t recognize it — [Translation] The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Moreau. [English] ORDERS OF THE DAY BUSINESS OF THE SENATE Hon. Iris G.

Petten (Acting 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-4, followed by the consideration of the message from the House of Commons, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

MAKING LIFE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR CANADIANS BILL THIRD READING—MOTION IN AMENDMENT—DEBATE On the Order: Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cuzner, seconded by the Honourable Senator Hay, for the third reading of Bill C-4,

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Clement, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond: That Bill C-4 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended by deleting

Part 4. February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1613

Hon. David M. Arnot: Honourable senators,

Part 4 of Bill C-4 is about whether Canadians retain meaningful control over information about themselves in the very process by which political power over them is sought. The scrutiny afforded to this portion of the bill in the other place was limited, markedly so, relative to its constitutional and democratic implications.

Part 4 governs how federal political parties may collect, analyze, combine, model and act upon personal data about Canadians. That demands deliberation. The debate is not about whether Parliament has jurisdiction over federal elections. That has been settled. The question is what Parliament chooses to do with that jurisdiction. Will Parliament create meaningful, enforceable privacy safeguards for Canadians using that jurisdiction? When Canadians hear that Parliament is legislating how political parties may use their personal data, they expect effective safeguards. Yet, multiple witnesses testified that

Part 4 resolves a jurisdictional question while leaving substantive protections undefined. For example, the Chief Electoral Officer testified that the bill would create what he described as a “complete code” but without embedding minimal privacy standards, and that, in his view, represented a backward step from earlier proposals, such as in Bill C-65. •

(1430) The Canada Elections Act already declares that it establishes a “national, uniform, exclusive and complete regime” governing political parties’ handling of personal information. However,

Part 4 would repeal and replace elements of that framework without embedding baseline statutory standards. The Commissioner of Canada Elections testified that enforcement would be operationally difficult where standards are vague, non-uniform and unsupported by adequate investigative tools. Witnesses identified gaps, anomalies and ambiguities in

Part 4 that make the legislation impossible to enforce. Jurisdiction alone does not create confidence. Protection of rights does.

Part 4 excludes the application of provincial privacy regimes to federal political parties. It leaves each party to define its own privacy standards within broad parameters. That is not how privacy law operates elsewhere in Canada. In commercial, public and provincial regimes, baseline standards exist. They do not exist in

Part 4. These protections are not abstract. They apply to voters, donors, contributors, volunteers, employees and businesses that participate in the democratic process. Canadian citizens sometimes unwittingly provide personal information to parties, sometimes very sensitive information, in reliance on the integrity of the system. Political campaigning is no longer episodic. It is continuous. It is data-driven. It is individualized. Modern campaigns do not merely target demographic categories. They model individuals. Persuasion increasingly operates through prediction. Databases are not neutral.

They could contain information that includes age, ethnicity, religion, language, gender, race or other characteristics closely linked to protected human rights grounds. Canadians are entitled to know whether such characteristics are being used — directly or inferentially — to categorize or prioritize them, or even exclude them from political engagement. When data analytics intersects with human rights dimensions, the need for transparency and safeguards increases, not decreases. That shift demands stronger safeguards, not weaker ones.

Around the world, democracies are confronting the integration of predictive analytics into political systems. The risk is not that Canada intends such a model. The risk is drift — gradual normalization of opaque behavioural profiling. Guardrails exist to prevent drift. This legislation has no meaningful safeguards.

Part 4 establishes jurisdictional boundaries. It does not establish behavioural boundaries for political parties. Who holds a primary interest in the political data of a citizen? The individual citizen does. That is a principle which underlies modern privacy law. It is not ideological. It is structural. We are sometimes told that the Senate should defer to the other place. I agree. Deference is appropriate where legislation has undergone serious study, detailed amendments and careful scrutiny. But where there is little evidence of substantive consideration of privacy standards, deference becomes abdication.

The record does not demonstrate that minimum safeguards were debated. It does not demonstrate that comparative analysis was done. In such circumstances, the Senate’s role is not ornamental. It is corrective. We are told this is temporary, that improvements may follow and that legislation may follow. The fundamental problem is this: If

Part 4 becomes law, will there be motivation or incentive to pass new and comprehensive legislation? Answer: not likely.

Part 4 gives political parties a get-out-of-jail-free card, retroactive 26 years to the year 2000. Why? No credible explanation has been put forward. There is no sunset clause. There is no statutory review trigger. There is no binding obligation to revisit this framework. 1614 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026

Retroactive legislation is not unprecedented. Parliament can do it. But where retroactivity intersects with active litigation or ongoing legal questions, transparency about purposes becomes very important. Retroactivity should not be incidental. It should be explained. This was not done. Temporary democratic law often becomes permanent democratic practice. Parliament had a prior model in Bill C-65. It had language available. Choices were available. Bill C-65 contained more detailed privacy provisions, including clearer obligations and safeguards.

It is therefore reasonable to ask: Why were those elements not carried forward? Where Parliament lowers the regulatory bar, it is appropriate to articulate the justification. That has not been done. The suggestion that stronger privacy standards would burden volunteers is misplaced. No regulator identified volunteers as the systemic risk. A volunteer knocking on a door is not a problem. The problem is an inadequately regulated behavioural database. Federal jurisdiction over federal elections is not in dispute. Invoking jurisdiction as justification for weak standards confuses authority with substance.

This is not a jurisdictional issue; it is an exclusivity issue. Political parties are not businesses. That is true. That raises the bar. It does not lower the bar. Businesses sell goods. Political parties seek governing authority. If privacy standards apply to retailers and hospitals, surely they must apply at least as rigorously to those who seek political power over Canadians. Democratic institutions require stronger protections, not weaker ones. Temporary measures in this domain are not benign. The stakes are too high. Democratic values are at risk.

Part 4 permits political parties to define their own privacy standards. They get to regulate themselves. This should concern every Canadian. The witness Jim Balsillie described attempts to characterize

Part 4 as strong privacy legislation as, in fact, “gaslighting.” The language is sharp. The concern is serious. Witness Elizabeth Denham, the former United Kingdom Information Commissioner who investigated the Cambridge Analytica scandal, asserted that

Part 4 is unsalvageable. I agree with that observation. Canadians deserve a fully scrutinized and debated stand-alone bill to protect their privacy rights. The absence of embedded standards makes structural correction difficult after the fact. Colleagues, it is more prudent to design the architecture correctly at the outset. Canadians deserve and expect to have their privacy rights protected by the highest standards available. When independent institutions converge in caution, Parliament should pay attention. A rule that cannot be effectively enforced is not a rule. It is an aspiration.

We are told that urgency compels passage. Urgency, however, does not negate responsibility. Urgency does not eliminate safeguards. Urgency does not explain why stronger language from prior proposals was removed rather than retained. The three affordability components of Bill C-4 are timely. Canadians need help, and they need it now. Nobody doubts that.

Part 4 of Bill C-4 does not have the same degree of urgency. It needs more time and more study. The simplest solution is to remove

Part 4 from the affordability bill, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with affordability. Political data has democratic value. A political database is not measured in clicks. It is measured in seats, government formation and legislative authority. The solution, colleagues, is not complex. Canada already has a mature privacy framework. Federal jurisdiction is appropriate. Weaker protections are not. The Senate’s function is not obstruction. It is refinement. Colleagues, Parliament legislates. It also leaves a record. Courts interpret legislation by its words. But when those words are unclear, they may look to the parliamentary record to understand what Parliament’s purpose was. •

(1440) Future readers may ask these questions: Did the other place demonstrate due diligence? Did they understand the implications? Did they consider the alternatives? Did they heed the warnings? This debate demonstrates that stronger protections were available and were seriously considered in only one place: the Senate. Honourable senators, we are deciding whether political parties may operate under a weaker privacy standard than most other major institutions in this country. If that is Parliament’s intent, it should be explicit; if not,

Part 4 requires amendment or deletion. Democracy requires free elections. It also requires that citizens retain sovereignty over their own information. Consent requires knowledge. Knowledge requires enforceable rights. Enforceable rights require law. Law requires enforcement. Democracy does not belong to political parties. It belongs to Canadian citizens. Citizens cannot meaningfully govern themselves if their political identities may be defined, profiled and acted upon in ways they cannot see. For those reasons, I cannot support

Part 4 of Bill C-4 in its present form. February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1615

The risks identified in this chamber by witnesses are not speculative; the safeguards omitted are not theoretical. When democratic political parties regulate themselves without minimum standards, public confidence in the system evaporates. The Senate’s duty — our duty today — is not to ratify inadequacy; it is to correct it. Where citizens’ democratic rights, human rights and privacy rights intersect, caution must prevail. Protection is paramount. The time is now.

Part 4 is hopelessly flawed. The Senate must stand up for Canadians. The unelected Senate is the last bastion protecting Canadians from the diminishment of their privacy rights, as proposed and directed by the members of the other place.

Part 4 is an empty box. Canadians expect better. Canadians deserve better. Canadians need better. Colleagues, I urge you to delete

Part 4 from Bill C-4, as Senator Clement proposed in her amendment. I am voting in favour of her motion. I encourage you to do the same in order to protect the fundamental credibility of the Senate. Thank you. The Hon. the Speaker: Senators Carignan and Housakos would like to ask questions. However, your time has expired. Would you like to answer questions? If so, you will need to request leave for more time. Senator Arnot: Yes. I would like to request leave for more time. The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted? Hon. Senators: Agreed. [Translation] Hon.

Claude Carignan: I appreciate the passion you showed when you talked about protecting privacy rights. However, I didn’t hear you talk about the constitutional right provided under

section 3, which guarantees every citizen the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein, which implies equal opportunities and means. Doesn’t it bother you that the means used to communicate with voters differ from one province to the next, from Quebec to British Columbia or to Alberta? That’s the effect that this will have.

It will create an inconsistency in the communication systems used between voters and candidates, leaving us with 14 different approaches. [English] Senator Arnot: Senator Carignan, thank you for the question. That does not scare me at all. The regime for privacy, for instance, in British Columbia, is very reasonable. It has the 10 safeguards that we refer to. I have no hesitation. I don’t see how if you have 13 or 14 jurisdictions, they are going to be so wildly different that they cannot be complied with. I see uniformity. That is common sense.

Most of the other provinces don’t have that kind of legislation, but if they did, I’m sure they would come up with common-sense solutions. [Translation] Senator Carignan: The purpose of any privacy legislation, including provincial legislation, is to ensure that private companies do not collect and use confidential information. Meanwhile, private companies always want to communicate with individuals in order to sell a product or service. The Canada Elections Act provisions related to the disclosure or collection of information are intended to promote individuals’ constitutional right to vote.

If I collect information about a person’s ethnicity or language, it’s because I want to send them a document that they can read in their own language and so that I can communicate with them. Do you not see a problem with enforcing a law that is designed to protect citizens in order to sell them private products, rather than another law that is designed to promote and ensure the exercise of a constitutional right? [English] Senator Arnot: Thank you for the question.

Senator Carignan, here is what I see as the fundamental problem: Federal political parties are using an opportunity to pull the wool over Canadian citizens’ eyes. They have hidden this in a bill; it has been done improperly; and it is based on deceit and manipulation. I believe that every Canadian citizen would be shocked and appalled if they knew what their government was doing right now to their privacy rights in this bill. The fact is that they don’t know because our fifth estate hasn’t told them. We need to tell Canadians what’s going on. There’s an easy way to fix this bill. The solutions are very clear.

It needs more time and study. We have already started it in the Senate committee, but we could amplify that further. We need more evidence. There is just no doubt about that. Thank you. Hon. Leo Housakos (Leader of the Opposition): Would Senator Arnot take a question? Senator Arnot: Yes. Senator Housakos: Thank you, colleague. I have two questions. You said in your remarks that the political parties in the House of Commons are not regulated and that this would be an opportunity to regulate a place that, right now, is self‑regulating.

I don’t necessarily agree with that. 1616 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026 [ Senator Arnot ]

If you look at our parliamentary democracy, there are two chambers. In one, we participate in democracy by extension; the other chamber participates in it directly. What regulatory measure would be more rigid, efficient and effective than facing the Canadian electorate every two to four years? It has now been proven for a century and a half because we have one of the greatest democracies in the world. Wouldn’t you agree, senator, that this has worked? That’s one question. Don’t you think that facing the electorate is the strongest regulatory measure you can possibly have?

Secondly, they are the ones who face that electorate. And on this particular measure, there has been unanimity among every single one of the members of Parliament on the other side. How many times in the last 10 years have I heard colleagues from your side get up and lecture us, saying that we should not interfere in the democratic will and the choices they make when we get bills broken down 52% for and 48% against? Here we have a measure about which every single member of the House is in favour. Senator Arnot: Thank you. I agree that the Federal Elections Act regulates political parties.

The fundamental problem is that there is no effective accountability mechanism according to the Commissioner of Canada Elections, who is the person responsible for doing that. She doesn’t have the tools, and she articulated that before the committee. As far as I’m concerned, the problem is that the safeguards we used to have in the act are taken away by this bill, because it is a new framework which allows the parties to create their own policies. •

(1450) What could a Canadian citizen do if the party had a policy and the citizen viewed that the policy was not followed properly? The answer is nothing. They cannot do a thing about it because there is no mechanism for them to deal with that, and there won’t be. I can understand why the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP gathered together for this one and why they made it unanimous. It is like, wow, a get-out-of-jail-free card, a get-out- of-court-free card for 26 years backwards. What do those political parties know that they are not telling us? Why do they need that kind of protection?

The Hon. the Speaker: The extra time allowed has expired. Hon. Krista Ross: Honourable senators, I would like to speak in support of Senator Clement’s amendment to remove

Part 4 in its entirety from Bill C-4. I will begin by noting that I believe that Parts 1 to 3, focused on tax changes and help for first-time homebuyers, are important and do deserve to be passed. However, tacking on an unrelated non-financial measure to a bill that deals with financial measures? It is something that we have raised concerns about time after time, and this time I firmly believe that

Part 4 absolutely does not belong in this bill. As a member of the National Finance Committee, I would like to give a little insight into our clause-by-clause considerations of Bill C-4 two days ago. Though the bill passed unamended, it was done so on division, specifically on the clauses in

Part 4, with senators on the committee believing that, ultimately, even though many did not agree with certain provisions in the bill, it was warranted that the discussion take place in the chamber, with the participation of all of our colleagues.

Although the bill has arrived in this place from committee unamended, I proposed an observation which was added that says: As repeatedly stressed in previous reports, this committee would like to express its concern about the inclusion of unrelated non-financial matters in bills focused on financial matters such as tax changes and affordability that prevents parliamentarians and Canadians from giving these matters the thorough scrutiny they deserve. . . . The National Finance Committee’s report also attached the report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where removing

Part 4 was one of the proposals. Colleagues, if you have not yet had an opportunity to read the report of the Legal Committee, I encourage you to do so before voting. It has been asked by our colleagues in this chamber why

Part 4 was included in this bill. Last June, during Committee of the Whole, Minister Champagne said: . . . it is because it was the first opportunity since 2000 to clarify the intent of the House to have exclusive federal jurisdiction over privacy matters with respect to political parties. At clause by clause on Tuesday, the question was asked again. Senator Moreau said that it was the first legislative vehicle that could be used and contain a measure that essentially had immediate application. Now, I find this explanation not quite up to par. The first opportunity since 2000?

I would put forward the hundreds of pieces of legislation since then. The first vehicle in this Parliament? Yes, perhaps, but the other place has had this bill in front of them for seven months. If it can wait that long, why can’t it wait to be included in a more comprehensive bill on privacy that the government has said is coming in the near future? At clause by clause, Senator Moreau also said: . . . according to the mandate of the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, the government intends to table privacy legislation in the near future. So why not remove

Part 4 so that affordability measures can pass expeditiously and save

Part 4 for this upcoming measure? Just imagine, if

Part 4 passes as part of this bill and the new privacy legislation is then introduced without privacy provisions relating to the Canada Elections Act, as they are supposedly dealt with here, what then? February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1617

Arguments have also been raised saying that this chamber should not be making changes about elections that were proposed in the elected chamber. However, though

Part 4 might amend the Canada Elections Act,

Part 4 is ultimately about privacy protection. In my opinion,

Part 4 is ineffective privacy protection masquerading as election changes so that the Senate would not touch them. When PIPEDA, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, came into effect in 2000, I was working in the Chamber of Commerce movement as an advocate for business. Businesses and organizations came on board and figured out ways to adhere to these policies, and I think they have done a good job.

How can we expect businesses, not-for-profits and all other organizations — some with limited resources compared to political parties — to follow those 10 basic rules of PIPEDA and not expect political parties to be able to follow them as well? I understand the intent of

Part 4 is to bring it under federal jurisdiction; this has been said by the minister. Now, to be clear, I am in agreement with Minister LeBlanc’s comments in this chamber on Tuesday in ministerial Question Period that it is not in the national interest of the country to have a patchwork quilt of provincial privacy commissioners or

interpretations on something as fundamental as protecting the private data of Canadian electors. But I do disagree with his statement that this legislation accomplishes that. Even with this legislation, there wouldn’t be a uniform national standard. There is no national uniform regime, as federal political parties each have different policies. Similarly, the Legal Committee agreed with witnesses that the privacy obligations of federal political parties should be set out in a uniform national regime. However, the majority of committee members are concerned that

Part 4 falls far short of the minimum standards required to protect the individual and national interests of Canadians at a time when global experience indicates these interests are increasingly at risk. As Senator Tannas put it on Tuesday at National Finance: Everyone except federal political parties will have to follow a privacy law, but the law for federal political parties is an empty box that says that every party must have a privacy policy. That’s the law. There is no oversight. There is no standard on what the privacy items need to be.

Many will point to the policies currently on political party websites, but there are no substantial minimum requirements when it comes to the handling of that information. This was demonstrated as recently as Tuesday when a candidate to become premier used Canadian electors’ data from a federal political party. Additionally, as Senator Tannas pointed out: There is the right of correction, but there isn’t the right of obtaining the information on which you can correct. You have to guess what they know about you and tell them that they might be wrong. How silly is this?

As was mentioned yesterday, when the changes in

Part 4 were put forward for the first time in Bill C-47, our colleague Senator Batters pointed out that neither the Chief Electoral Officer nor the Privacy Commissioner were consulted. This time around, the two parliamentary officers who are responsible in this area — the Commissioner of Canada Elections and the Chief Electoral Officer — were consulted by the Legal Committee and they outlined their concerns with this bill.

Caroline Simard, Commissioner of Canada Elections, stated: As currently drafted, Bill C-4 does not clearly state whether the privacy provisions extend to nomination contestants, leadership contestants or campaign volunteers. It also appears that they would not apply to independent candidates. While candidates and electoral district associations are listed in the bill, the activities of those working for them may not be fully captured by the amendments.

This is significant because most individuals who access the list of electors are volunteers of candidates, not employees of political parties or riding associations. At the end of the day,

Part 4 is out of line with PIPEDA, the General Data Protection Regulation and even the consumer privacy protection act. Going back to Minister Champagne, appearing before Committee of the Whole last June, he said: . . . under the Canada Elections Act, I think it is a framework that is well recognized around the world as one of the best frameworks for democracy . . . .

When it was given study for the first time in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Elizabeth Denham, former Information Commissioner for the U.K. and former Information and Privacy Commissioner for B.C., speaking as an individual, said: In the U.K. and the EU, there are comprehensive data protection laws that extend across that whole political ecosystem, including political parties, and the last time we checked, democracy was alive and well.

Now, outside of Europe, New Zealand, South Korea, South Africa, Brazil and many other nations include political parties in their data protection and privacy laws. There is no exemption there for political parties. Canada is an outlier when it comes to extending independent oversight for political parties’ use of personal data and breach notification and reports to an independent authority. 1618 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026 [ Senator Ross ]

I believe

Part 4 rightfully belongs in the promised upcoming privacy bill, where it can be properly studied within the context of privacy legislation in order to ensure the protection of private data of Canadian electors. I believe Canadians expect parliamentarians and political parties to be held to a higher standard — at the very least, the same standard as others. I believe Canadians certainly do not want political parties held to less stringent or lower standards. Colleagues, I thank you for your attention, and I would encourage you to also vote in support of Senator Clement’s amendment to remove

Part 4. Thank you, wela’lin. •

(1500) BUSINESS OF THE SENATE The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the order of February 25, 2026, I leave the chair for the Senate to resolve into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive Anton Boegman respecting his appointment as Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner. The Honourable Senator Cormier will chair the committee.

FOREIGN INFLUENCE TRANSPARENCY COMMISSIONER ANTON BOEGMAN RECEIVED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE On the Order: The Senate in Committee of the Whole in order to receive Anton Boegman respecting his appointment as Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner. (The sitting of the Senate was suspended and put into Committee of the Whole, the Honourable René Cormier in the chair.) The Chair: Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive Anton Boegman respecting his appointment as Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner.

Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance can be yielded to another senator. I would now invite Anton Boegman to join us. (Pursuant to the order of the Senate, Anton Boegman was escorted to a seat in the Senate Chamber.) The Chair: Mr. Boegman, welcome to the Senate. As I have informed my colleagues, the question-and-answer period will be divided into 10-minute blocks.

Some of these blocks will be shared between two or three senators and will include time for your responses. I would ask you to make your opening remarks of at most five minutes. Anton Boegman, nominee for the position of Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner: Thank you. Good morning, senators. It is my pleasure to appear before this committee meeting in relation to my nomination as Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner. Canada’s institutions and interests are increasingly under threat from foreign interference.

Malign foreign actors seek to exert influence through covert means, shape public policy, change public opinion or interfere with our democratic processes, all to support their own interests. The critical measure to counter these activities is transparency. Canadians need to know who is trying to influence them and why.

The Office of the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner is being established to enable this transparency, to enforce the rules and regulations that will govern what types of influence activity need to be disclosed and to support the efforts of other agencies and offices in protecting Canadian institutions and interests. [Translation] I am honoured to have been nominated for the position of commissioner.

I have devoted my entire career to protecting and supporting our democracy, first as a naval officer and then, for the past seven years, as British Columbia’s Chief Electoral Officer, an independent and non-partisan role. I became aware of the risks associated with disinformation and foreign interference in our elections in 2018, following the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

My reports to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia on these issues led to the passage of groundbreaking legislation against deliberate disinformation, while maintaining Charter protections. [English] I believe that, while effective legislation is necessary, a multi‑faceted approach is better. In 2023, in response to evolving risks to elections, I established an election integrity working group, unique at the provincial level, bringing together other provincial and federal agencies with roles in protecting democracy.

I believe this experience is directly relevant to the mandate of the office and demonstrates my ability to build the kinds of partnerships and information-sharing pathways that will be essential for consistent application of the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act nationwide. February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1619

My service as an independent officer of the B.C. legislature has provided me with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to be successful in the role of commissioner. I’ve administered elections, implemented registers, regulated election advertising and campaign finance, carried out large-scale communication programs and interpreted and enforced the rules in a fair and non-partisan manner. My values of accountability, accessibility, integrity, transparency and service guide my decision making and are aligned with what I believe is required in the commissioner role.

This is a new office in the process of being established. If I have the honour of being appointed commissioner, my priorities will be to launch and operationalize the office and registry, engage with communities likely to be targeted and build public awareness of the office registry and rules. It is critically important to ensure that there is clarity about the rules and that they are understood. I would also work to establish and operationalize partnerships required to support this mandate, for example, with CSIS and the RCMP.

I believe it is essential to start enforcing the rules promptly and to report publicly on that activity. Citizens need to see this work in action. Only then will it work to support efforts to strengthen public trust in our democratic institutions by making transparent foreign influence activities and reinforcing fairness through a non-partisan approach to enforcement. [Translation] My message to Canadians is as follows.

If I am appointed as Canada’s first Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner, I promise I will work tirelessly to ensure that activities seeking to influence political and government processes in Canada are publicly disclosed, that foreign actors are deterred from secretly carrying out clandestine influence operations in Canada and that the regulations currently being developed are enforced. [English] I hope that I can count on your support. Thank you. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boegman. We will now proceed to the first block of questions, which goes to Senator Yussuff.

I was informed you will be sharing your time with Senator Woo and Senator Simons. Senator Yussuff: Commissioner, first, welcome. We’ve been waiting a long time for you to get here. I’m glad to see you have finally arrived and that you have been chosen to take on this responsibility. Canada is one of only a small number of democracies, including the U.S., the U.K. and Australia, that have created a foreign interference integrity registry. That’s a serious step in the right direction given the challenges we face in this country.

What safeguards are in place to ensure your office operates independently and isn’t subjected to political direction? How would you measure success in a way that builds public confidence, not just enforcement statistics? Mr. Boegman: Thank you for the question. I agree with you that this is a very necessary step that we’re embarking on here. I’ll speak first to the outcomes and not merely statistics. I think it’s important that the information bulletins and rules are clearly explained to people. I think that needs to be very broad and go to all reaches and peoples of Canada.

That needs to be done in a number of different languages. People need to know the rules. They need to be engaged in understanding what those mean so that they can see that they’re being implemented effectively. There will, of course, need to be action. There needs to be enforcement when enforcement is necessary. •

(1510) However, it will be important for Canadians to know that there is a system in place and that the rules are working, and it’s important that they understand what the rules are, such as which activity is permissible, which activity requires registration and which activity is not necessary to register for. Could you touch back on the specifics of the first part of your question? Senator Yussuff: How will you ensure your office operates independently of political direction? Mr. Boegman: Yes, thank you. I have operated as an independent officer of the B.C. legislature over the last seven years.

I’m very well acquainted with both the need to be independent and the perception of being independent. In this legislation, the office is established not as an independent agent of Parliament but as an embedded agency. But there are mechanisms to ensure independence. Part of the independence is in the reporting structures. Although the reports go through the minister, I’m able to report on any matter that I see as relevant to the jurisdiction and the mandate of the office, as well as annual reports on activities.

The way that the office is being set up will allow for independent review, action and decision making of the commissioner. Senator Woo: Mr. Boegman, welcome to the Senate. Thank you for your work at Elections BC. I want to start with your understanding of what we are trying to create here. You talked about malign foreign actors, but the registry we are trying to create based on the law we passed in this chamber is a whitelist, as we were told in the debates. It’s meant to be country-neutral and country-agnostic. It’s meant to be irrespective of the issue concerned.

The point is to get as wide a net as possible to capture all kinds of foreign influence, not bad influence as such. Do you agree with that characterization? Mr. Boegman: Yes. 1620 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026 [ Mr. Boegman ]

Senator Woo: In that case, is it correct to say that the registry will exclude non-state actors, except in the case where foreign economic entities are controlled or owned by foreign states? Therefore, is it correct to say that private actors — such as private foundations, private companies, lobby groups, foundations and activist groups, as we know of many — will be excluded from the registry? Mr. Boegman: My understanding of the requirements for registration in the registry is that three criteria need to be met. One criterion is there needs to be an agreement.

There needs to be an arrangement between an individual, an entity and a foreign principal. That activity has to be done in relation to that agreement, but the activity must be directed at a political or governmental process, and that’s across Canada. That’s regardless of whether it is a federal, provincial, territorial, municipal or Indigenous process. That’s the second criterion. The third criterion is the influence activity has to be directed at a public office-holder.

It has to be directed broadly at the public in relation to political or governmental processes, or it has to involve an exchange of some value, including disbursements of money or things of value. Senator Woo: I’m getting at the question of the foreign principal. The law, as you probably know very well, is defined through the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act, which talks about state actors principally. In the consultation paper we received on the draft regulations, there was a question raised about whether foreign-funded institutions or media outlets would be required to register.

The suggestion was that they would not. This is extraordinary to me. Is that the case? Mr. Boegman: I can’t speak to the finalization of the regulations. I have not had any association with that or any input into that. My understanding is that exceptions under the regulations are part of that development process, and they may come into play, but I can’t speak specifically to that. I don’t have awareness of that. Senator Woo: Non-state actors should be included in the foreign influence transparency registry.

I want to refer to the news we’re getting of support from certain countries and private groups for secession in this country. Regarding private groups, on the face of it, they will not have to register? Mr. Boegman: Again, all I can speak to is my understanding of what the legislation is currently. My experience in British Columbia as the Chief Electoral Officer was often there will be a statute that will have requirements. As it is implemented, it may be possible to determine that there needs to be changes, amendments or enhancements if there are things that are happening.

I can’t commit to what has come to this point, but I would commit to clearly focusing on that area, should I be fortunate and honoured to be named and confirmed as commissioner. Senator Simons: Let me pick up where my colleague Senator Woo left off. When Canadians first contemplated this kind of legislation, they were thinking about China, India and Russia. As an Albertan, what I’m worried most about is foreign interference from the United States through American officials and their agents. We’ve already seen U.S.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent weigh in on the Alberta referendum campaign, and the separatists have been boasting publicly and repeatedly about taking meetings with State Department officials in Washington. It’s an Alberta referendum under provincial law, but it affects our national unity and Canadian sovereignty. If you are confirmed as commissioner, can you tell us what your philosophy would be about how we manage issues, whether it’s Alberta or Quebec, where the influence is being asserted in the provincial sphere? What’s your role as the federal commissioner? Mr.

Boegman: My understanding is the law is applicable across Canada. It’s not just in federal processes. The law would be applicable in provincial, territorial and municipal processes. If it’s a provincial or territorial referendum, it would be a provincial political process, so the law would be applicable. If there are these activities that meet the criteria that I outlined previously, then registration will be required. Senator Simons: Will we be asking Americans, our erstwhile allies, to be part of that foreign influence transparency registry? Mr. Boegman: Yes, we would be asking them.

It applies to anyone who meets those criteria. The purpose of the registry is simply transparency. It is simply so that people know who is speaking to them if they’re acting on behalf of a foreign principal. Senator Simons: Thank you very much. Senator Housakos: Thank you, Mr. Boegman, for being here. If you receive the privilege of taking on this role, you’ll be one of the most important guardians of our democracy. Less than a year ago, during the general election, the Prime Minister identified China as Canada’s greatest national security threat. We had a public inquiry that highlighted the same thing.

We’ve had countless public reports from the RCMP, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and so on highlighting China as our greatest national security threat. Given certain political realities, we recently saw the Prime Minister go to and re-engage in commercial discussions with Beijing. Geopolitical issues are one thing. National security and transnational repression are others. Will you be influenced by political realities from time to time in your execution of Bill C-70, or will you stay focused on the clear question of national security and transnational repression? Mr. Boegman: Thank you.

My experience and my intention, should I be confirmed for this role, would be to act as an independent commissioner and to look at each instance vis-à-vis the legislation and the requirements under that, as well as enforce the legislation as it is written. That is my intention and how I understand the role has been set up. February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1621

I have been in positions where political influence has been attempted. I’m pleased to say that I’ve withstood that. I’m very proud of my previous service as Chief Electoral Officer in a role where it’s critically important not only to be strictly neutral, non‑partisan and free from any political influence but also to be perceived as the same. Senator Housakos: Thank you, sir. The Liberal government has yet to fully implement Bill C-70 — that’s why we’re still here — in establishing the registry, despite broad cross-party, partisan and public support. A year and eight months after its passage, here we are.

I hope that in the final steps of this prolonged process, your nomination will get us to the finish line. Could you outline what remains to be done before the registry is fully operational? Do you currently have an office, staff and the necessary infrastructure in place to establish and maintain the registry? •

(1520) Do you have the necessary resources to get up and running quickly, effectively and efficiently? Can you give us a bit of background, from your point of view, on whether that is the case right now? Mr. Boegman: I’m certainly happy to give what background I can, though I would preface it by saying that right now I am just a private individual. I’ve been brought forward to be nominated for this position. I have thus far had no formal relationship with or involvement in any of the work that’s ongoing by Public Safety Canada to take the steps necessary to establish an office and these sorts of things.

I do know that steps are currently being taken and that work is at play. “Play” is, perhaps, not the correct word, but a lot of work is being done to prepare the office for the moment when the law will be brought into force and the requirements will be there to register. A technological solution is being developed, staffing models are being developed, procedures around the investigative side are being developed and communication materials are being developed. These sorts of things are happening as I speak. I’m not in any position to oversee that.

As a private citizen, I don’t have any role in that, per se, but I certainly know the focus is on getting the office ready to administer when the law comes into effect. Senator Housakos: Our Five Eyes security partners, through the years, have, on a number of occasions, made public declarations, reports and studies saying that Canada is one of the poorest democracies when it comes to transnational repression and foreign interference. This is, obviously, again, why we’ve been trying for years to ensure that Bill C-70 gets implemented and that we take action.

It took a decade before we had this legislation come before this institution. It will now be almost two years before the registry is implemented. In your view, has this delay created opportunities for transnational repression by actors such as Beijing, Iran, Türkiye and others? What could be the possible consequences of a decade-long delay? Mr. Boegman: I think that foreign interference is something that has been going on since time immemorial.

I remember reading a report of an attempt during the 1796 U.S. presidential election, when France used both overt and covert activities to try to ensure a Thomas Jefferson win. I am not so naive as to think that the establishment and operationalization of the registry will put a stop to these activities, but I do think that it is a critically important tool to have greater transparency around these activities. I think the range of penalties being established will serve as a deterrent to these types of activities taking place.

I really think that the best way of addressing complex issues like foreign interference and transnational repression is a whole‑of‑government and whole-of-society approach. It will involve many different agencies, which have different levers and ways to approach it. I think that education about the issues and about the tools that are available is important, and that must happen within community groups and broadly across civil society. Senator Housakos: Thank you for that answer.

As we all know, these entities — nefarious forces that engage in foreign interference — often invest more resources in terms of money in their operations, and I use the United Front Work Department as an example. If you look — and it’s quite public — they spend billions of dollars around the world in order to infiltrate our democracies in all areas, be it culture, universities, academia or religious institutions, and they even engage with our political institutions.

Does the registry, as it is currently written, give you the tools, latitude and leeway required to go into all the corners of our society where we know these nefarious forces are operating on a daily basis? Mr. Boegman: I certainly believe that the way the office has been established and the way the legislation is set up will serve a very important role and will be a very important tool, but it’s not the only tool.

As I said in my previous response about there needing to be a broad-based response involving many different agencies, I think that the Office of the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner will rely on partnerships, particularly with other security agencies and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who have expertise, understanding and insight into things that are taking place. As a potential commissioner, I would not have that insight. You need to establish those relationships. You need to understand the levers that they will be using.

You need to understand specifically where one mandate starts and another mandate ends to ensure that things don’t get left in between. 1622 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026 [ Mr. Boegman ]

I’m confident that I’ll be able to develop the necessary relationships and partnerships to use those agencies effectively to support the work of the commission. Senator Housakos: Thank you again. I’m happy with the legislation. It is a little bit late, but better late than never. I have one last question. I would have preferred something like a task force to deal with this particular issue. Will you be calling out security forces and police services in this country if, in your opinion, there’s a lack of action on evidence that you provide? Mr. Boegman: I think that depends on the nature of the evidence.

Obviously, I would be under requirements of secrecy and other things, depending upon what I hear. I think it’s critically important for there to be effective partnerships and for every agency with a role to play in this sphere to do the work that’s necessary. Senator Housakos: Mr. Boegman, thank you for coming before the Senate and for your transparency. Mr. Boegman: Thank you. Senator Downe: Welcome to the Senate of Canada. I’m enjoying your answers so far. I hope that continues for my questions as well.

When the special report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, was released in June 2024, it stated that foreign actors cultivated relationships with: . . . members of Parliament and senators – with a view to having the Canadian act in favour of the foreign actor and against Canada’s interests. . . . Every leader in the House of Commons who wished to do so was given the opportunity to read the unredacted report, a courtesy that was not offered to any leader of any group in this chamber, not even the government leader at the time.

Thus, members of the Senate were treated like second-class parliamentarians. My question is this: Will you assure senators today that your office — and you, personally — will demonstrate equality of treatment in every respect between the Senate and the House of Commons? Mr. Boegman: As far as I am able to, yes, I would do that. Senator Downe: Thank you. We’ll follow up if there is a problem. As you’re aware, Canada, unfortunately, is not a leader on foreign interference legislation. Many of our allies have introduced legislation, and we’re playing catch-up, but better late than never.

Australia, for example, had legislation in 2018, but it was criticized as very weak. Since its passage eight years ago, five people have been charged, all of whom were agents of the Communist government of China. Have you compared the Australian legislation with ours, and do you see any opportunities to ensure that ours will be more effective? Mr. Boegman: Again, as I said in a previous response to a previous question, currently, I’m just a citizen.

I’ve been nominated for this position, but I’ve had no role in relation to the work that has been done to date in getting the office up and running, to develop regulations and so on. Of course, I’m very interested in the file. I have read the reports. I’ve had a look at the legislation. I have read various reports that have assessed the effectiveness of the different statutes. •

(1530) I think that it is imperative that we learn from the lessons that other nations, particularly allies who have similar schemes, have put in place. I also think that, of course, each country is different and is looking at perhaps slightly different risk factors and different vectors. So there does need to be some focus on what is needed for Canada and how that can be best put in place. I’m also a firm believer that you need to start, and you need to start with something and get that in place. You need to start communicating about that, implementing it, enforcing the rules, those sorts of things.

It is only at that point that one will be really able to see if it’s working as intended. Are there other areas that could be brought in? Is it too broad or too narrow? That would certainly be a focus of mine should I be confirmed in the role and once the legislation is brought into effect and the office is operationalized. The U.S. legislation, as an example, FARA, or Foreign Agents Registration Act, is very broad and includes anything that really impacts public opinion. Having a mandate that broad at the beginning would be extremely challenging for a new office to implement.

However, I think that the approach and the legislation that we have here are clear. Through further elaboration of some

definitions, terms,

interpretation guides and bulletins, it will be clear to those who fall subject to that legislation what the requirements are. Will it catch every single behaviour it is intended to? That will not be known until it has been in place already. I am confident there is support for the work that this office is intended to do and that there would be support for changes should those changes be necessary. I would not hesitate to table reports if I believe that there need to be a different approach, adjustments or amendments in the future. Senator Downe: Thank you.

I am glad you have given some thought to that because one of my concerns is like the old saying: Locks are for honest people. People who really want to get through a lock will find a way. The question would be how we avoid catching people who are trying to follow the rules but are in violation, as opposed to a foreign country who will consider a fine or even a prison term as the cost of doing business to February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1623

undermine democracy in Canada. What you have just told us is that, as we go through this, you are prepared to address this in a very public manner if necessary. Is that correct? Mr. Boegman: That is correct, yes. Senator Downe: I wonder if you have given any thought to the role of social media companies, mostly foreign-owned, which use their platform to direct and focus news and commentary based on their biases and priorities that may be against the interests of Canada. Have you given any thought to how to deal with that if you get this new position? Mr.

Boegman: I have thought about social media and the role that social media plays in our lives. It was certainly front and centre for me when I was the Chief Electoral Officer in British Columbia. A lot of the political debate is carried on through social media and new media. Certainly, it is both the means through which information can be passed and the means within which misinformation or disinformation can be spread, whether that is deliberate or unwilling. In the case right now, my focus to this point has certainly been trying to make sure that I have a clear understanding of the legislation as it is written.

I have been following closely the development of the regulations, which, of course, will further elaborate that legislation in the requirements. My sense is that, right now, social media can be used as a means via which the influence activities are taken. That in itself would not be sufficient for registration. You would have to determine that there is an arrangement between an individual or an entity in the foreign principal and that it is targeting these processes. But should social media be the avenue via which the public is being targeted, then those activities would be registerable.

As to the role of the social media companies themselves, I think that is one that broadly is captured by the act, but has not specifically been targeted by the legislation. Senator Downe: I’m wondering if you are aware of what level of security clearance you will have. There are many beyond “top secret.” It is my experience that many of these agencies work in silos, and depending on your level, they will not want to share information. They may be reluctant to share information anyway, but the reluctance will be compounded if you don’t have a senior-level security clearance.

You will need some very sensitive information to do your job in a responsible manner. You don’t have to tell us the level. Sometimes the level itself is a secret. But do you have comfort that you will have the capacity you need on the security side to get the information you need to do the job? Mr. Boegman: At this time I do have comfort, yes. Senator Downe: Thank you, chair. The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boegman. Senator Klyne: Mr. Boegman, thank you for being here. You have been good with your answers so far. As you probably know, Canada was the first country in the world to pass laws regarding crypto-currency.

Yet, recent reports suggest unregistered crypto-to-cash services are operating nationwide, often without ID checks or proper records. These systems can be exploited for money laundering and potentially for terrorist financing or foreign interference in our political processes. How will your office ensure that the long-awaited foreign influence transparency registry captures financial activities conducted through crypto-currency, particularly when these transactions are opaque, rapid and cross borders? Mr. Boegman: Thank you for the question.

If I understand it correctly, my sense is that the types of things you are describing would cross over the mandates of a number of security and law enforcement agencies. The role of the Transparency Commissioner would be to make sure that those entities or individuals who are doing the influence activities, if they are doing so at the behest of and in association with or under the direction of a foreign principal and they meet the other criteria, then they would register. If crypto-currency was part of that, either in terms of disbursing funds in some way, then that would also meet the requirements for that.

As I think I have stated before, those are the sorts of things that I would rely on partners for in terms of specific intelligence or other factors suggesting that these activities fall under the mandate of the Transparency Commissioner. But if they meet those requirements, then registration would be required or they would fall under the range of penalties that are necessary. Senator Klyne: They have always been there. What I’m focusing on is that we have been waiting a long time for this transparency registry, and I hope you can leverage that up and get the full benefit of the intent.

As a supplementary question, given the rapid growth of crypto‑based finance and the limited enforcement history in Canada, do you see a role for your office in coordinating with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, the RCMP and other agencies to detect and investigate terrorist financing and crypto-related foreign influence activities before they affect our elections or democratic institutions? Mr. Boegman: Again, from my understanding, those types of activities would also come under the jurisdiction of other agencies.

Certainly, any election financing related types of things would fall under the Commissioner of Canada Elections to investigate if they are foul, if they run counter to the current Canadian financing laws. •

(1540) If they are used to sponsor terrorist activities or things such as that, then there would be other agencies and other laws that those would apply to. If they are being used in some influence scheme at the direction of a foreign principal, they would be things that would be required to be registered. 1624 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026 [ Senator Downe ]

I see the registry as an important tool, but it is one tool that is part of a range of measures that are necessary to truly address these threats and risks. Senator Cardozo: Welcome, Mr. Boegman. I would like to continue the discussion about the registry as noted in sections 5 and 8. I have always thought the registry is a bit of a naive approach and that the bad actors are probably not going to register. How do you deal with those who do not register and engage in problematic behaviour? I also want to know when you think the registry will be ready. What about cyberwarfare?

Whether it is state actors or non‑state actors who engage in trying to influence elections or referenda through cyberwarfare and cyber-activity, what do you do about it? Mr. Boegman: Thank you. That is a broad set of questions. Certainly, I realize that those individuals who are doing covert activities may not be inclined to register. I think if effective partnerships can be created and some insight into that can take place, then once they are identified, there can be activity.

Whether it is on the administrative penalty side or through the courts, there is the ability for criminal prosecutions under the statute as well that may be applicable in those cases. I am pleased in terms of the proposed range of administrative monetary penalties. It is very substantive, from a low of $50 up to $1 million. It is far greater than the maximum under U.S. law, under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which is capped at $250,000.

That range of penalties allows for flexibility on one side if there is really inadvertent activity that should be registered but isn’t, but it also provides a significant deterrent. Having that as a potential penalty may deter some actors who employ covert means currently to do these types of things. When is it going to be ready? That’s not a question that I have a clear answer to. As I said before, I am a citizen. I’ve been brought forward here, but I have not been involved in the work to date to establish the office, to get the technology solution in place to create any of the communication materials.

That, of course, would be a key focus for me, should I be named to the role, and would be necessary to ensure that the office is ready to go when the law is brought into force. In terms of cyberwarfare, I must admit that I’m not an expert in it other than my understanding of hybrid threats to elections specifically. I guess there are some parallels here. I know that it can be used as a tool to influence, a tool to harass and a tool to threaten.

Similar to the question that I received in terms of social media companies, if it is being used as a channel through which influence activity is taking place that meets the requirements under the legislation, then it would, of course, be registerable and would be an entity I would require to register. [Translation] Senator Henkel: Good afternoon, Mr. Boegman. The registry is intended to ensure transparency in activities carried out on behalf of foreign governments.

These days, however, interference often occurs through relational influence approaches, such as university partnerships, cultural funding, strategic philanthropy or a network of diasporas that don’t always have a formal mandate. How would you handle these grey areas without stigmatizing communities or curbing legitimate exchanges? Mr. Boegman: Thank you for the question. I will try to answer in French. It’s a good opportunity for me to practise, since I don’t use French every day.

Living in B.C. for the past 30 years, I’ve had the opportunity to speak with my son, who was in French immersion at school, and use apps like Duolingo and Babbel. Senator Henkel: Allow me to assure you that you speak French very well. Mr. Boegman: Thank you. I think it’s very important to understand the grey areas and the nuances of the relational influence you talked about. I think it’s possible to have exceptions in the rules for some types of activities that aren’t foreign influence operations. I think it’s important to develop relationships with academics and groups — The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boegman.

Senator Carignan: Welcome, Mr. Boegman. Having read your CV, I wanted to ask you questions about Bill C-4, but I’ll save that for another time. Experts say that Canada’s response to foreign interference is currently fragmented, leaving democratic institutions highly vulnerable. Can you tell us how your office will ensure that the registry addresses these gaps and provides actionable intelligence to protect Canadian democracy? Mr. Boegman: Thank you for the question. I think we have a good opportunity now with the new office, as well as with other agencies. Foreign interference is a higher- profile issue now.

For example, the Chief Electoral Officer understands that this is a concern, and we can actually look at their act to see if it needs to be improved in some way to address this. The foreign interference transparency office has to work alongside all the other agencies. The office has a specific mandate, but it has to work with the other agencies to combat foreign interference. Senator Carignan: When you say “other agencies,” do you mean CSIS, CSE and national security advisers? February 26, 2026 SENATE DEBATES 1625

Mr. Boegman: Yes, the RCMP, but also returning offices. Senator Carignan: Okay. Will the registry include mechanisms for monitoring and addressing foreign interference in real time, or will it be limited to producing retrospective compliance reports? Mr. Boegman: The registry is simply a transparency instrument. If activities that meet the criteria are being carried out, they have to be entered in the registry. Activities can be carried out if they’re entered in the registry within 14 days.

It’s helpful not in the moment, but later, and it also ensures greater transparency. • (1550) [English] Senator Martin: It is nice to meet you. I also come from British Columbia, and I want to recognize the good work you have done in that province. Mr. Boegman: Thank you. Senator Martin: I know you haven’t yet begun your work and might not answer with specifics, but may I ask you about these stats? The government estimates that nearly 1,550 businesses and 872 individuals will be required to declare their foreign influence activities in Canada. Do you agree with this estimate? Mr.

Boegman: It is hard for me to agree when I have not yet seen the work that is behind that. I am confident that the estimate was based upon the best information available, so it likely represents a realistic number of entities and individuals that would be required to register under the legislation. I do know from my examination, as a matter of interest, of the models and mechanisms in other countries that there have been varying numbers of registrants initially in the U.K., which has a different scheme than Canada has — I think within the first six months, there were only something like six registrants.

Obviously, it will impact entities and organizations. I think my role coming into it is going to be making sure the guidance and the understanding of the rule is clear for all who may fall under the model and be required to register so that they know when they need to register. It is going to be important to ensure there is accessibility to the registration mechanism through a complete technological solution or under the interim model — that it is clear what they have to do when they come in to register. Senator Martin: You are assuming that these numbers are somewhat accurate.

To me, it seems like quite a high number of potential registrants. Do you think this underscores how overdue this registry is and that it could be detrimental to delay its implementation? We have delayed it. It is time to do it; it was long overdue. Do these high numbers indicate such concerns? Mr. Boegman: I’m on the public record in B.C. that I do believe this issue of foreign interference and influence has been happening in Canada. It has been happening at all levels. It probably happens more frequently in some of the more Northern communities in Canada and in some of the territories.

I do think it is happening. I am very pleased that the legislation is under development. It is an area that I have been watching closely, as I said. Should I be appointed as commissioner, I look forward to commencing that work. Senator Martin: I know the purpose of your office is to increase transparency, detect and deter non-transparent attempts by foreign states to influence Canadian political and governmental processes.

Assuming what Senator Cardozo asked, and that we assume the truly malicious and clandestine actors will not voluntarily register their activities with your office, I want to ask you again about deterrents. What are some of the strategies? Have you thought about what you can do as a deterrent? It will be very critical to what happens. Mr. Boegman: Certainly. The main deterrence mechanism in the legislation that would be available to the commissioner is the very wide range and significant financial penalties that are available under the administrative monetary penalties scheme.

I think that information would be reported publicly. Not only is there the impact of a potential fine, but it would also have a professional deterrent on these types of activities. I’m not so naive as to think there will still not be efforts ongoing after the registry is in place. For those, the office is being set up with the capability to do investigations. As I have said in this Committee of the Whole, it is going to necessitate the support of the work of other agencies and other organizations in Canada that also have a role to play in preventing foreign interference.

They will need to be working in partnership, using the best levers that are available and possible for deterrence. Specific to the role of the commissioner, though, the wide range of penalties is the primary deterrent mechanism. [Translation] Senator Youance: Thank you, Mr. Boegman, and congratulations on your career. I had the opportunity to observe elections in Moldova in which Russian interference was a factor. I witnessed disinformation, cyberattacks and influence operations carried out by non-state groups.

In response, Moldavian authorities adopted certain security measures that stemmed entirely from legitimate intentions, but that nevertheless ended up restricting voter access in certain pro-Russian areas, both within Moldova’s borders and among certain diaspora communities. Could there be a conflict between security and accessibility in Canada? How would your mandate ensure that any measures taken here are transparent, proportionate and respectful of democratic rights? 1626 SENATE DEBATES February 26, 2026

Mr. Boegman: Thank you for the question. Transnational repression is an important factor, and these events pose a more serious threat here in Canada. The effectiveness of the transparency registry will therefore depend primarily on deterrence, but public education will be just as important to its effectiveness. That’s why I think it will be important to connect with minority groups or communities in order to understand their perspectives on the matter. We’ll also have to see how this part of the law is going to be implemented.

Without these communication opportunities, it will be difficult to understand how the law will affect these communities. Senator Youance: You mentioned the existence of transnational institutions capable of contributing to Canadian democracy. Could you briefly tell us what new structures or mechanisms would be needed to fill existing gaps? Mr. Boegman: That’s outside the commissioner’s mandate. The office of the commissioner would not be able to answer that question. It’s important to engage with communities to understand that destigmatization is possible, for example. •

(1600) The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Boegman. [English] Senator Loffreda: Mr. Boegman, welcome and congratulations on being proposed as a candidate for the position of Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner. I know you are quite familiar with the work of the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions and Commissioner Hogue’s findings. She cautioned that governments are not known for reacting quickly

Document details

Collection	Senate Debates
Citation	2026-02-26 / Sitting 054 / 36-3 / E
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	2026-02-26 / Sitting 054 / 36-3
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	HANSARD_SEN
Identifier	5898737af4b3fa8f81f1be0ee37cb97ea9d196c6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).