2 days ago
The politics of political party data hypocrisy
Imagine if select Canadians could decide which laws applied to them and which didn't, as long as they vowed to follow a set of rules that they had written and made available for public consultation.
'I, John Doe, declare that I am no longer subject to the income tax laws of Canada and instead will abide by my own rules. Rule No. 1: I don't pay taxes.'
That, of course, would be anarchy. But it happens to be the way Canada's federal political parties want to operate when it comes to privacy rights: one set of rules for themselves and another for everyone else.
This hypocrisy was hidden in plain sight this week when the government tried to pull a fast one by sticking a set of bespoke privacy protection rules for federal parties at the bottom of a bill dealing with the cost of living.
There on the last three pages of a 22-page bill about oranges (affordability) was an unexpected and unannounced section about apples (voter data).
The proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act would exempt federal political parties and entities acting on their behalfs from all provincial and federal privacy regimes, and create a new one exclusive to them.
The changes, which have the support of the Conservatives, put it plainly: a federal party and any company it hires to collect and manage data 'cannot be required to provide access to personal information or provide information relating to personal information under its control or to correct – or receive, adjudicate or annotate requests to correct – personal information or omissions in personal information under its control.'
The law would be retroactive to the year 2000 – a crude power flex.
The Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives are appealing a 2024 B.C. Supreme Court ruling that said federal parties are subject to provincial privacy laws and must turn over the voter data they gather if ordered to do so. Passage of the bill will end the court case – a slap in the face of the judiciary.
The same legislation would require federal parties to write their own privacy policies and make them public. But the required contents for those policies, as set by the legislation, are laughably slight.
The parties will have to name the person responsible for overseeing the policies they write, state what kind of personal information they collect and how they collect it, and reveal what training they provide employees about safeguarding that information. And that's it.
This comes nowhere near the demands that the federal government makes on private companies through its much-vaunted 'digital charter.'
Under that 2022 law, individuals are supposed to have 'control over what data they are sharing, who is using their personal data and for what purposes, and know that their privacy is protected.'
As well, Canadians can 'demand that their information be destroyed' when they withdraw their consent for its collection.
No such luck with federal parties, though. And yet these are the same parties that, in 2019, uploaded voter e-mail addresses to Facebook without voters' knowledge. In 2021, the Liberals used facial-recognition software to verify the identities of people voting in nomination races.
The parties are constantly scraping up voters' personal information, whether through party memberships, door-to-door campaigning, petitions or other means, and then sharing it to suit their purposes.
That data is one of their greatest assets, and they don't want to give it back once they have it, or have anyone other than themselves oversee its collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal.
On the Liberals' part, they are showing a particular indifference to Canadians' privacy that could also be seen this month in the Mark Carney government's plan to allow police to go on warrantless fishing expeditions in people's internet subscriber information.
The whole thing is wrong. Canadians should have the right to take their names off party lists, and to be informed of how their personal information is being shared and used by the parties.
The parties don't want that, though. At least, not for themselves. Tough rules are for everyone else.
