4 days ago
Advocates question tax-cut bill's plan to shield federal parties from provincial privacy laws
The federal government's tax-cut-focused legislation, Bill C-4, is facing strong criticism from privacy advocates over the inclusion of an unrelated section that would shield federal parties from provincial privacy laws.
Federal parties develop in-depth profiles of Canadians based on door knocking, phone calls and other means in an attempt to identify likely supporters.
But how political parties gather this information, how they protect it and what they use it for is largely unregulated in Canada.
The timing of the government's move appears to be linked to a legal battle playing out in British Columbia. Last year, B.C.'s Supreme Court ruled against the federal Liberal, New Democratic and Conservative parties, saying they are subject to the investigative powers of provincial privacy commissioners.
The three national parties were challenging the legality of an investigation by the B.C. Privacy Commissioner.
A hearing on the matter by the B.C. Court of Appeal was planned to begin June 24, though that may now be rescheduled.
In a statement to The Globe and Mail, B.C. Privacy Commissioner Michael Harvey said he is disappointed the federal legislation has been introduced 'almost literally on the steps of the courthouse,' which he said risks further delays to an already protracted process.
'While we have not conducted a full legal analysis, the bill appears to create privacy rules that apply up to 25 years ago. This on its face is absurd,' he said.
Conservatives raise privacy concerns over powers in government's border security bill
Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Canada Research Chair in Internet Law, said it was extraordinary to bury these new rules in an affordability measures bill, and to apply them retroactively 25 years to the year 2000.
'Varying privacy rules that place political parties beyond the scope of virtually any privacy law in Canada is enormously problematic given how voracious the parties have been when it comes to collecting the data of Canadians,' he said. 'It is possibly the weakest possible conception of rules governing the privacy rights of Canadians when it comes to political parties.'
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said the section of the bill raised serious questions about privacy.
'This proposal, tacked onto a law that's focused on affordability, fails to provide any meaningful safeguards against the often intrusive privacy practices that have become all too common features of modern political campaigns,' said Tamir Israel, director of the CCLA's privacy, surveillance and technology program.
Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne introduced Bill C-4 last Thursday, promoting it as a three-point plan to reduce costs for Canadians, including an cutting income taxes, waiving the GST on new homes of up to $1-million for first-time home buyers, and removing the federal fuel charge.
But the legislation includes a fourth section that Mr. Champagne didn't mention in his promotional material related to the bill.
Opinion: Alarming privacy threats are buried in the Liberal border bill
Part 4 of the bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to state that federal political parties 'cannot be required to comply with an Act of a province or territory that regulates activities in relations to personal information ...' unless the party's personal information policy 'provides otherwise.'
Instead, the proposed legal change says political parties must comply with their own policies for protecting personal information.
It says these policies must state the types of personal information the party collects and have a designated privacy officer to oversee compliance with the policy.
Mr. Champagne did not mention the Elections Act changes on Friday when he gave an opening speech in the House of Commons promoting the bill.
Neither his office nor the Liberal Party immediately responded to a request for comment.
During the debate after the minister had left, NDP MP Lori Idlout asked Conservative MP and democratic reform critic Michael Cooper for his thoughts on the inclusion of Elections Act changes that have 'nothing to do with affordability.'
Mr. Cooper replied that he takes Ms. Idlout's point that it would have been more appropriate to have introduced those changes in a separate bill. But he added that he supports the substance of the proposed privacy changes.
'I do support those amendments: to have a uniform system in place with respect to privacy laws falling exclusively under federal jurisdiction, as they pertain to federal political parties,' he said.
The proposed changes are similar to elements that were contained in Bill C-65 in the previous Parliament. That legislation was specifically focused on updating the Canada Elections Act.
It was introduced in March, 2024, but never advanced beyond second reading and died on the order paper when that Parliament was dissolved earlier this year.
Prof. Geist published an analysis that said the C-65 proposals were stronger than the latest version, which drops an earlier requirement to inform Canadians about data breaches.
Lawyer Bill Hearn, external general counsel to the Centre for Digital Rights, an organization created by Canadian entrepreneur Jim Balsillie that has been supporting a group of B.C. residents at the centre of the provincial privacy case, said he's confident the courts will ultimately declare the Liberal proposal unconstitutional.
Ann Cavoukian, Ontario's former three-term privacy commissioner, said the proposal, in a bill focusing on tax cuts, 'makes no sense whatsoever' and is 'alarming.'
'Personal information is supposed to be strongly protected and used only for the purposes for which it was collected,' she said in an interview.
