The government is moving to eviscerate political party privacy in Canada as it fast tracks Bill C-4, proposed legislation framed as implementing affordability measures, but which also exempts political parties from the application of privacy protections on a retroactive basis dating back to 2000. The government moved to end second reading debate yesterday without a single Liberal MP speaking to the privacy provisions in the bill and is seeking to fast track hearings in the Senate so that it can be passed before Canada Day. The provisions give political parties virtually unlimited power to collect, use and disclose personal information with no ability for privacy commissioners to address violations. The bill drops earlier proposed requirements to disclose security breaches and restrict selling Canadians’ information and it blocks the application of provincial privacy laws. The bill’s provisions set a privacy standard for political parties (effectively limited to merely disclosing their privacy practices) that would be unthinkable for the private sector and establishes an unprecedented back-to-the-future approach of wiping out any potential accountability dating back decades.

Members of Parliament regularly emphasized that privacy is a fundamental human right when debating Bill C-27 during the last Parliament, calling for an explicit provision to that effect in the bill. Yet apparently those human rights stop when it comes to political parties and their use of personal information. Not only is the government burying anti-privacy provisions in the bill, but government ministers and MPs have avoided any debate on the issue. Minister François Philippe Champagne did not mention the provisions in his comments on the bill and no Liberal MP has dared raise it in the House of Commons.

While the government avoids referencing it, the issue has arisen a couple of times during debate. On June 6th, NDP MP Lori Idlout asked Conservative MP Michael Cooper about the privacy reforms:

Lori Idlout: Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a similar question to the one I asked earlier with respect to Bill C-4. It seeks to amend portions of the Elections Act, which has nothing to do with affordability. I wonder what the member’s thoughts are on that.

Michael Cooper: Madam Speaker, I take the hon. member’s point that it would have been more appropriate to have provided those amendments in the form of a separate piece of legislation. With regard to the substance of part 4, the amendments to the Canada Elections Act, 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.

Cooper’s response is incredibly disingenuous given that the so-called “uniform system” created by these changes is to have no privacy law at all since the federal law does not generally apply to political parties.

The privacy provisions were raised again yesterday by Conservative MP Steven Bonk and Green MP Elizabeth May. May focused on the retro-activity of the provisions, but it was Bonk – alone among all MPs – that invoked authoritarian regimes and rightly warned that the bill weakens transparency and trust in our political system:

When Canadians provide their personal information to political parties, whether signing up for a newsletter, attending a town hall or simply expressing support, they are placing trust in us. They expect that information to be treated with care, confidentiality and respect. When that expectation is not met, the harm is not just legal or administrative. It is democratic.

The bill may clarify federal jurisdiction, but it also takes provincial privacy commissioners out of the picture. These offices have built strong, effective systems to address complaints and hold organizations accountable. By removing that layer of oversight, we risk weakening the transparency and trust that Canadians expect and deserve.

There is also the risk of reinforcing cynicism. When people see legislation rushed through Parliament, particularly as part of a broader omnibus bill, they may feel that their concerns are being managed, not addressed. When they discover that their personal data, collected for political purposes, exists outside the scrutiny applied to most other private entities in Canada, it raises a troubling double standard. We should ask ourselves what example we are setting as federal political actors. If we expect businesses, charities and provincial governments to uphold privacy rights, should we not hold ourselves to at least that same standard?

I believe that we can do better. Rather than simply assert jurisdiction, we should be using this moment to create a clear, principled and enforceable privacy framework tailored to the political context, one that respects constitutional boundaries but does not sacrifice accountability. Canadians should not be asked to choose between federal clarity and democratic transparency. They deserve both. There is a real opportunity here to lead by example.

As federal lawmakers, we can take a proactive approach. We can establish minimum privacy standards for political parties, standards that ensure Canadians know exactly how their data is collected, stored and used, so that the publication of a privacy policy becomes more than a symbolic check box. We must restore trust and credibility, and we must strengthen our democracy from within. While the legislation does address the jurisdictional gap, it should not be mistaken for a comprehensive solution.

The real solution lies in demonstrating that political parties are willing to play by the same rules as everyone else, that we are not seeking exemption but embracing transparency. This is our chance to get it right, not just for today but for the next generation of voters, many of whom are already deeply skeptical of political institutions. Let us give them a reason to believe that we are listening and that we are willing to hold ourselves to the same standard we expect of others, one that respects constitutional boundaries but does not sacrifice accountability.

Canadians should not be forced to choose between federal clarity and democratic transparency. They deserve both. This is why, as we debate legislation like this, we must ask not only whether it meets constitutional muster but also whether it strengthens public trust, whether it improves how we serve and whether it brings citizens closer to the institutions that represent them.

Government MPs had nothing to say about the privacy issue in response.