4 reasons to be concerned about Bill C-4's threats to Canadian privacy and sovereignty
Federal legislation in the form of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act sets out privacy standards for government and business, based on the fair information principles that provide for the collection, use and disclosure of Canadians' personal information.
At the moment, these laws don't apply to political parties. Some provinces — especially British Columbia — have implemented laws that do. In May 2024, the B.C. Supreme Court upheld the provincial Information Commissioner's ruling that B.C.'s privacy legislation applies to federal political parties. That decision is currently under appeal.
Bill C-4 would undermine those B.C. rights. It would make inapplicable to federal parties the standard privacy rights that apply in other business and government contexts— such as the right to consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information — and to access and correct personal information held by organizations.
Why should we be concerned about Bill C-4's erasure of these privacy protections for Canadians? There are four reasons:
In light of threats to Canadian sovereignty by United States President Donald Trump, the Canadian government and Canadian politicians must rethink their approach to digital sovereignty.
Until now, Canadian parties and governments have been content to use American platforms, data companies and datified campaign tactics. Bill C-4 would leave federal parties free to do more of the same. This is the opposite of what's needed.
The politics that resulted in Trump being elected twice to the Oval Office was spurred in part by the datafied campaigning of Cambridge Analytica in 2016 and Elon Musk in 2024. These politics are driven by micro-targeted and arguably manipulative political campaigns.
Do Canadians want Canada to go in the same direction?
Read more:
Bill C-4 would undermine one of the mechanisms that makes Canada a society: collective political decisions.
Datified campaigning and the collection of personal information by political parties change the nature of democracy. Rather than appealing to political values or visions of what voters may want in the future or as a society — critically important at this historical and troubling moment in history — datified campaigning operates by experimenting on unwitting individual citizens who are alone on their phones and computers. It operates by testing their isolated opinions and unvarnished behaviours.
For example, a political campaign might do what's known as A/B testing of ads, which explores whether ad A or ad B is more successful by issuing two different versions of an ad to determine which one gets more clicks, shares, petition signatures, donations or other measurable behaviour. With this knowledge, a campaign or party can manipulate the ads through multiple versions to get the desired behaviour and result. They also learn about ad audiences for future targeting.
Read more:
In other words, political parties engaging in this tactic aren't engaging with Canadians — they're experimenting on them to see what type of messages, or even what colour schemes or visuals, appeal most. This can be used to shape the campaign or just the determine the style of follow-up messaging to particular users.
University researchers, to name just one example, are bound by strict ethical protocols and approvals, including the principle that participants should consent to the collection of personal information, and to participation in experiments and studies. Political parties have no such standards, despite the high stakes — the very future of democracy and society.
Most citizens think of elections as being about deliberation and collectively deciding what kind of society they want to live in and what kind of future they want to have together as they decide how to cast their ballots.
But with datified campaigning, citizens may not be aware of the political significance of their online actions. Their data trail might cause them to be included, or excluded, from a party's future campaigning and door-knocking, for example. The process isn't deliberative, thoughtful or collective.
Political parties collect highly personal data about Canadians without their knowledge or consent. Most Canadians are not aware of the extent of the collection by political parties and the range of data they collect, which can include political views, ethnicity, income, religion or online activities, social media IDs, observations of door-knockers and more.
If asked, most Canadians would not consent to the range of data collection by parties.
Some governments can and do use data to punish individuals politically and criminally, sometimes without the protection of the rule of law.
Breaches and misuses of data, cybersecurity experts say, are no longer a question of 'if,' but 'when.'
Worse, what would happen if the wall between political parties and politicians or government broke down and the personal information collected by parties became available to governments? What if the data were used for political purposes, such as for vetting people for political appointments or government benefits? What if it were used against civil servants?
What if it were to be used at the border, or passed to other governments? What if it were passed to and used by authoritarian governments to harass and punish citizens?
What if it was passed to tech companies and further to data brokers?
OpenMedia recently revealed that Canadians' data is being passed to the many different data companies political parties use. That data is not necessarily housed in Canada or by Canadian companies.
If provincial law is undermined, there are few protections against any of these problems.
Bill C-4 would erase the possibility of provincial and territorial privacy laws being applied to federal political parties, with virtually nothing remaining. Privacy protection promotes confidence and engagement with democratic processes — particularly online. Erasing privacy protections threatens this confidence and engagement.
The current approach of federal political parties in terms of datified campaigning and privacy law is entirely wrong for this political moment, dangerous to Canadians and dangerous to democracy. Reforms should instead ensure federal political parties must adhere to the same standards as businesses and all levels of government.
Data privacy is important everywhere, but particularly so for political parties, campaigns and democratic engagement. It is important at all times — particularly now.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sara Bannerman, McMaster University
Read more:
Why Elon Musk's US billion loss wasn't really that – and what it tells us about the philanthropy of the ultra-wealthy
Mitigating AI security threats: Why the G7 should embrace 'federated learning'
Meta's AI-powered smart glasses raise concerns about privacy and user data
Sara Bannerman receives funding from the Canada Research Chairs program, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and McMaster University. She has previously received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's Contributions Program and the Digital Ecosystem Research Challenge.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Little confidence' US Gaza delegation would see full picture
The visit to Gaza by Trump's envoy was an important gesture to show America cared about the humanitarian situation there amid mounting pressure at home and abroad. It was also "to learn the truth", according to US Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who accompanied Mr Witkoff to an aid site. They gave themselves around five hours to do this. The American delegation will report their assessments back to Washington and "help craft a plan to deliver food and medical aid to the people of Gaza". There's very little confidence in either of those objectives. Images of Mr Witkoff sitting around a table at a calm and ordered aid site in Gaza does not suggest Donald Trump will hear a full picture of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. And America's plans to deliver aid to Palestinians in Gaza has proved deeply flawed in recent months. When Mr Witkoff last visited Israel in May, it was a very different picture. Palestinians were suffering in Gaza and getting killed in airstrikes but deaths were not largely a result of hunger. It was around that same time the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was launched as the new way of distributing food in the enclave by America and Israel. "GHF delivers more than one million meals a day, an incredible feat!", wrote Mike Huckabee after his visit to site 3 with Trump's envoy. It paints a very different picture to the images and reports we receive on a daily basis of Palestinians getting killed and injured attempting to reach aid at these sites close to areas of conflict. Read More: People in Gaza have told me regularly going to these sites is a last resort because they're so scared - but food is now so scarce for many there is little choice. Not enough aid is getting through and we're hearing reports every day of deaths due to hunger. A UN-backed authority on food crises this week reported the "worst case scenario of famine" is now playing out in Gaza. The UN has decades of experience as humanitarians distributing aid in Gaza yet it seems America is still backing its GHF model run by inexperienced armed security contractors. In light of this, reports that a new plan is being formed for Gaza between the US and Israel don't instill a huge amount of confidence.


Los Angeles Times
3 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California, other states sue Trump over order threatening gender-affirming care providers
California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Friday over efforts to end gender-affirming care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary children and young adults nationwide — calling them an unconstitutional attack on LGBTQ+ patients, healthcare providers and states' rights. The lawsuit was brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and officials from 15 other states and the District of Columbia. It challenges a Jan. 28 executive order by President Trump that denounced gender-affirming care as 'mutilation' and called on U.S. Justice Department officials to effectively enforce a ban, including by launching investigations into healthcare providers. The lawsuit notes the Justice Department last month sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that have provided such care nationwide, with justice officials suggesting they may face criminal prosecution. Bonta's office, in a statement, said such efforts 'have no legal basis and are intended to discourage providers from offering lifesaving healthcare that is lawful under state law.' The lawsuit asks a federal court in Massachusetts to vacate Trump's order in its entirety for exceeding federal authority and undermining state laws that guarantee equal access to healthcare. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. Trump made reining in transgender rights a key promise of his presidential campaign. Upon taking office, he moved swiftly to do so through executive orders, funding cuts and litigation. And in many ways, it has worked — particularly when it comes gender-affirming care for minors. Clinics across the country that had provided such care have closed their doors in response to the threats and funding cuts. That includes the renowned Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles, one of the largest and oldest pediatric gender clinics in the U.S. The clinic told thousands of its patients and their families that it was shuttering last month. Other clinics have similarly closed nationwide, radically reducing the availability of such care in the U.S. Republicans and other Trump supporters have cheered the closures as a major win, and they praised the president for protecting impressionable and confused children from so-called woke medical professionals pushing what they allege to be dangerous and irreversible treatments. Bonta said in the Friday statement that Trump and his administration's 'relentless attacks' on such care were 'cruel and irresponsible' and endangered 'already vulnerable adolescents whose health and well-being are at risk.' 'These actions have created a chilling effect in which providers are pressured to scale back on their care for fear of prosecution, leaving countless individuals without the critical care they need and are entitled to under law,' Bonta said. Mainstream U.S. medical associations have supported gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria for years. They and LGBTQ+ rights organizations have accused Trump and his supporters of mischaracterizing that care, which includes therapy, counseling and support for social transitioning, and can include puberty blockers, hormone treatment and, in rarer circumstances, mastectomies. Queer advocates, many patients and their families say such care is life-saving, alleviating intense distress — and suicidal thoughts — in transgender and other gender-nonconforming youth. They and many mainstream medical experts acknowledge that gender-affirming care for young people is still a developing field, but say it is also based on decades of solid research by medical professionals who are far better equipped than politicians to help families make difficult medical decisions. However, as the number of children who identify as transgender or nonbinary has rapidly increased in recent years, that argument has failed to take hold in many parts of the country. Conservatives and Republican leaders have grown increasingly alarmed by such care, pointing to young people who changed their minds about transitioning and now regret the care they received. 'Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding,' Trump's executive order stated. Trump and others have escalated tensions further by spreading misinformation about kids being whisked away from school to have their gentials mutilated without their parents' knowledge — which is not happening. The battle has played out in the courts, in part as a state's rights issue. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that conservative states may ban puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender teens, with the court's conservative majority finding that states are generally free to set their own standards of medical care. The Trump administration, however, has not taken the same view. Instead, it has aggressively tried to eradicate gender-affirming care nationwide, regardless of state laws — like those in California — that protect it. Trump's Jan. 28 executive order, titled 'Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,' claimed that 'medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.' It defined children as anyone under the age of 19, and said that moving forward, the U.S. wouldn't 'fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another,' but would 'rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.' The states' lawsuit focuses on one particular section of that order, which directed Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to convene state attorneys general and other law enforcement officials nationwide to begin investigating gender-affirming care providers and other groups that 'may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.' The section suggested those investigations could be based on laws against 'female genital mutilation,' or even around a 1938 law known as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics. On July 9, Bondi announced the Justice Department's subpoenas to healthcare providers, saying doctors and hospitals 'that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable.' On July 25, The Times reported that Bill Essayli, the Trump administration's controversial pick for U.S. attorney in L.A., had floated the idea of criminally charging doctors and hospitals for providing gender-affirming care, according to two federal law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. The targeting of gender-affirming care is part of a wider effort by the administration to eliminate transgender rights more broadly, in part on the premise that transgender people do not exist. On his first day in office, Trump issued another executive order declaring there are only two sexes and denouncing what he called the 'gender ideology' of the left. His administration has sought to limit the options transgender people have to get passports that reflect their identities, and the Justice Department has sued California over its policies allowing transgender girls to compete against other girls in youth sports. Many transgender Americans are looking for ways to flee the country. Still, many in the LGBTQ+ community fear the attacks are only going to get worse. Among those who are most scared are the parents and families of transgender kids — including those who believe their health records may have been collected under the Justice Department's subpoenas. One mother of a Children's Hospital patient told The Times last month that she is terrified the Justice Department is 'going to come after parents and use the female genital mutilation law ... to prosecute parents and separate me from my child.' Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.


New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
RNC chair Michael Whatley launches NC Senate bid, opening door to new leadership
WASHINGTON — Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley has formally kicked off his bid for the hotly-contested North Carolina Senate seat, opening the door for new leadership at the top of the official GOP. Whatley can remain RNC chair up until the vote for his replacement, which has yet to be officially scheduled. His departure will mark yet another change in leadership, as Lara Trump stepped down as RNC co-chair in December in favor of a weekend hosting gig on Fox News. Democrats have not won a Senate seat in North Carolina since 2008, but have high hopes of replacing retiring GOP Sen. Thom Tillis with former Gov. Roy Cooper. An initial poll by Emerson College released Friday showed Cooper leading Whatley by six percentage points among all voters (47%-41%) with 12% undecided. 3 President Donald Trump, left, takes the stage with NCGOP Chairman Michael Whatley after being announced at the NCGOP state convention on June 5, 2021 in Greenville, North Carolina. Getty Images To replace Whatley, President Trump has backed Florida state Sen. Joe Gruters, the current RNC treasurer. Gruters, 48, has made headlines in the Sunshine State for his tense relationship with Gov. Ron DeSantis, who called him out July 16 by saying: 'Gruters has taken major positions contrary to what our voter base wants to do.' The governor specifically criticized Gruters for opposing legislation to reduce the power of teachers' unions in the state and campaigning for a constitutional amendment that would have largely decriminalized marijuana in Florida. Gruters also was at the center of a fight between DeSantis and the Republican-controlled Florida legislature over illegal immigration after lawmakers initially rejected an enforcement proposal by the governor in favor of legislation that would have weakened DeSantis' power. 'He was the author and architect of this terrible amnesty bill, which would have made everything I've done — including Alligator Alcatraz — to help President Trump's illegal immigration removal agenda illegal in the state of Florida,' DeSantis said July 16. On Friday, however, Trump praised Gruters on Truth Social as a 'MAGA Warrior … who has been with us from the very beginning.' 3 Florida state Sen. Joe Gruters, of Sarasota, was reelected in August 2022, with the help of an endorsement from Donald Trump. THOMAS BENDER/HERALD-TRIBUNE / USA TODAY NETWORK / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images 'As State Senator and Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, Joe helped us deliver massive and historic Victories across the State, including my three BIG WINS in 2016, 2020, and 2024!' Trump wrote. 'As RNC Treasurer, Joe has been a Fierce Advocate for our Movement, and fought tirelessly to ensure a highly functioning, fiscally responsible, and financially successful RNC. He will be a wonderful Chairman!' The new chair will lead the party into the 2026 midterms, with Trump saying he has high hopes for Republicans to 'increase their margins' in both the House and Senate. The new chair will be aided by Trump's $1.4 billion war chest that will be used to back some of his 'friends' running across the country. 3 People wave their signs during Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley's campaign launch event for North Carolina's open US Senate seat, Thursday, July 31, 2025, in Gastonia, N.C. AP To replace Gruters as RNC Treasurer, Trump endorsed Jennifer Saul-Rich, who has served as a national committee woman from New York since 2004. 'Joe Gruters and Jennifer Saul-Rich are 100% America First, and I know they will do an incredible job, and secure Great Success for Republicans all across our Country,' Trump wrote. 'Joe and Jennifer have my Complete and Total Endorsement — THEY WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!'.