Sara Bannerman: March 2026

Last week I explained in The Conversation how "Canada’s three main federal political parties are working together to fight voter privacy rights" in Bill C-4, which would exempt political parties from the only present laws (provincial ones) which give Canadians standard privacy protections when their personal information is collected an used by federal political parties.

The Senate proposed to modestly amend C-4 to provide a sunset clause to these provisions. Thursday, the House rejected these amendments.

The Senate's Thursday debate, ending with their unfortunate decision to defer to the House of Commons and drop insistence on the modest amendment, is an interesting read. Their decision is unfortunate because the Bill is a self-interested and self-dealing move by MPs to protect federal political parties from adhering to basic privacy standards.

This petition calls on the House of Commons to stop exempting themselves from privacy standards.

Here are some excerpts from Thursday's debate from those Senators who have understood the privacy and/or conflict-of-interest problem:

Hon. Marilou McPhedran:

...in the middle of a bill on affordability for Canadians, we have slipped in this sneaky invasion of the privacy of Canadians.

In Part 4 of Bill C-4, there is a removal of any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal, private information of Canadians.

In Part 4, clause 45, it says that any of the provisions for the protection of privacy are “. . . deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”

The bill then says that Part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000. We are now in the year 2026, and this bill reverts to 26 years ago.

and

I want it to be on the record that in voting to support this bill, yes, we are expressing our concern for the affordability crisis in this country, but, in addition to that, Senator Housakos, we are setting back 26 years of the invasion of privacy and the lack of protection of privacy for the sole benefit of political parties in this country. I want that on the record.

Hon. Paul (PJ) Prosper:

I would also say, as a lawyer, that if the judge, prosecution and defence counsel in a case all have a vested interest in a certain outcome, they would all be in conflict. In this case, every elected member of Parliament belongs to a political party affected by this bill. These political parties have made it very clear that these are the changes they want. They said so in their letter as part of their ongoing appeal in the B.C. court case that led to this legislation in the first place.

At times, there are moments when an unelected chamber not relying on a political party for nominations, electoral support and war chests must weigh in. Yes, Canada is a democracy, so there are notions of restraint and deference to the elected house built into our role, but this restraint must have limits.

We recently heard the Pratte doctrine summarized aptly by Senator Colin Deacon. It was about when the Senate should insist on the House adopting Senate amendments, which:

. . . should be reserved for relatively rare cases where the issue is of special importance related to our constitutional role, where we are prepared to lead a serious fight and see its completion, when a significant part of public opinion is or could be on our side, although there could be exceptions, and where there are realistic prospects of convincing or forcing the government to change its mind.

This is precisely the moment when sober second thought of an independent house is necessary. Election by plurality should not allow the major political parties to go over the heads of the public will and the public interest.

and

If we want to be treated as equal and assert ourselves, does it strengthen our case to simply be deferential while naming it “self-restraint” when the Senate is, as we have so thoroughly debated here, uniquely positioned to meet this moment?

It’s important to be clear what’s at stake when we are dealing with the privacy rights of Canadians. With the advent of social media, privacy rights have faced a reckoning in recent years because we have realized how fundamentally valuable our personal information is. When our behavioural patterns and preferences can be weaponized with algorithms to change our beliefs and behaviour, we lose our personal and political agency.

The beneficiaries of this power are now calling on us to let them regulate themselves by allowing them to write their own privacy policies, leaving us with a potential patchwork of policies that have little to no minimum requirements or guardrails.

Hon. Colin Deacon:

I am concerned that the House historically has not prioritized the passage of privacy bills. I will just cite Bill C-11 in 2020, Bill C-27 in 2021 and Bill C-65 in 2021. That makes our work even more important because the work has not been done in the House.

As well, I still have no idea how Canadians benefit from Part 4 of Bill C-4. It was important that we looked at it to see whether or not there were benefits or problems. The witnesses showed us that there were very serious concerns. It was not that we were stepping out of our lane; we were very much in our lane. All of those concerns related to the issue of privacy.

and

I have not met a Canadian who was initially aware that they do not have privacy protections as it relates to their voter data. They are horrified when they learn that if they have any knowledge of the risks related to the issue of privacy. There are a lot of people who don’t care about it. They don’t necessarily understand how they are putting themselves at risk and don’t care. But I’ve not met anybody, period, who has understood this to be the case and been comfortable with it being the case.

I have not heard from anyone like that, other than the three lawyers in our Legal Committee when I watched the proceedings on TV. They are the only three people whom I have come across who firmly believe everything is just A-okay with it being as it is.