Just weeks after last year’s election, Mark Carney’s government committed not one, but two privacy blunders in rapid succession. First, Bill C-2 – literally the first substantive bill of the new government – buried lawful access provisions in an omnibus “border measures” bill that would have established unprecedented warrantless access to the personal of information of Canadians. Second, days later it introduced Bill C-4, which was framed as affordability measures bill but included provisions that exempt political parties from the application of privacy protections. The bizarre assault on privacy felt like an opportunistic attempt to insert unpopular rules in the hope that few were paying attention. The strategy was failure: the government ultimately introduced a new border measures bill with lawful access removed (new lawful access rules are expected in their own bill this year) and now a Senate committee which studied the Bill C-4 privacy rules has recommended that they be killed, removed from the bill, or subject to a two-year sunset clause.

Read more ›

It hasn’t received much attention, but the government and official opposition – ie. the Liberals and Conservatives – have been quietly working to pass legislation that undermine the privacy rights of Canadians, effectively exempting themselves from the privacy rules imposed on everyone else. As I highlighted in June, Bill C-4 was promoted as “affordability measures” bill but it also includes provisions that exempt political parties from the application of privacy protections. The provisions, which come toward the end of the bill, are deemed to be in force as May 31, 2000, meaning that they retroactively exempt the parties from any privacy violations that may date back decades. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance wrapped up its study of the bill last week and incredibly it refused to hear from any witnesses that would speak to the issue. In fact, despite concerns raised in briefs from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Commissioner of Elections, the committee (consisting almost entirely of Liberal and Conservative MPs) limited its discussion of an entire section of the bill to a thirty second description of the provisions from a government official. No witnesses, no debate, no acknowledgement of concerns raised by experts. It was as if the provisions do not exist.

Read more ›