Petition calls on MPs to stop exempting themselves from privacy

Canadians should sign this petition calling on the House of Commons to stop exempting themselves from privacy standards.  

The Conversation: "Canada’s three main federal political parties are working together to fight voter privacy rights"

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 deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”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.

 

Middle powers and new copyright coalitions: better, stronger, more just?

In his Jan. 20, 2026 speech at the World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recognized that "multilateral institutions [...] are under threat" and that current crises have "laid bare the risks of extreme global integration."

He recognized that "the story of the international rules-based order was partially false." "You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration, " he said, "when integration becomes the source of your subordination." 

What should the Government of Canada do? Carney suggested that Canada, as an "intermediate" or "middle power" should "hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture" to "build a new order that encompasses our values." 

Canada, he said, should find "different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests." This, he said, "is not naive multilateralism, nor is it relying on their institutions. It's building coalitions that work – issues by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together." "We can build something bigger, better, stronger, more just," he said; "This is the task of the middle powers, the countries that have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and most to gain from genuine cooperation."  

C-4, privacy erasure bill, passes through committee with no debate of crucial privacy erasure clauses

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance completed its examination of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure on Wednesday October 29, 2025 without debating or reporting any amendments to Part 4 of the bill.

Part 4 of the bill is designed to retroactively destroy the privacy rights that the British Columbia Supreme Court recently affirmed are applicable to political parties under BC's privacy law; s 47 amending s 446.4 (1) of the Canada Elections Act states that federal political parties parties: "cannot be required to comply with an Act of a province or territory that regulates activities in relation to personal information, including the collection, use, disclosure, retention and disposal of personal information, unless the party’s policy for the protection of personal information provides otherwise."

s. 49 makes these provisions retroactive to May 31, 2020. 

The committee ignored all of the relevant briefs submitted to the Finance Committee highlighting this issue. This is astounding since the majority (seven) of the twelve briefs submitted to the committee and made available on its web site dealt with part 4, with all of the civil society organizations calling for it to be deleted: 

1. Caroline Simard, Commissioner of Canada Elections
2. Philip Dufresne, Privacy Commissioner of Canada 
3. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association 
4. FIPA the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
5. OpenMedia 
6. The Centre for Digital Rights 
7. Sara Bannerman (me)

The only mention of part 4 of the bill during the entire committee study is the totally inadequate summary 67-word summary provided by Cathy Hawara, assistant secretary to cabinet, machinery of government and democratic institutions at the PCO, who stated: 

Thank you for inviting me today.

 

Part 4 of the bill seeks to clarify Parliament's intent that the activities of federal political parties involving personal information fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction and, more specifically, the Canada Elections Act. It would further clarify that this has been the case since May 31, 2000.

 

Finally, the bill proposes new additional requirements that political parties would need to meet with respect to their policies on privacy.

 

Thank you.

The recent May 2024 British Columbia Supreme Court decision affirming individuals' rights in their personal information held by federal political parties was under appeal by parties, but the appeal was stayed on the introduction of C-4, since C-4 would attempt to retroactively destroy the rights in question.

 Bill C-4, if passed, also undermines provincial legislative authority. 

The Centre for Digital Rights sums up the very significant problems left unaddressed in the committee:

The so-called privacy provisions in the Canada Elections Act, even with Part 4 of Bill C-4's
proposed changes, undermines citizens' meaningful political participation and their right to a free,
informed vote, because they fail to require [federal political parties] to (1) secure individual consent, (2) restrict personal data collection, (3) grant full access to personal information, (4) confine the use and sharing of data to its original purpose, and (5) enable individuals to correct their information.
The absence of such requirements in the Canada Elections Act allows for a gerrymandered,
deliberately engineered system that favours the [federal political parties]’ goals over voters’ informed choices. It favours one political party or voter over another.14 It undermines the electorate’s ability to critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of different candidates, parties, and issues, and to be reasonably informed of all the possible choices. It leaves Canada’s democracy susceptible to the manipulative practices that voter analytics and micro-targeting encourage. It denies Canadians the transparency and informational rights they enjoy with government agencies and commercial organizations, but not with the [federal political parties].

 For more see my interview on Michael Geist's Lawbytes podcast and my other related posts.

 

Parliamentarians undermine privacy and democracy with C-4

Bill C-4 seeks to undermine Canadians' privacy rights in the troves of data held by federal political parties.

A BC court case, about to be heard next week, would potentially grant or affirm that Canadians have the same privacy rights we all expect everyday from businesses and government from federal political parties as well.  

The federal Liberal party, with the support of the other major federal political parties, will erase those rights with the passage of Bill C-4, which would undermine any rights that might be affirmed by that case by making any provincial laws, BC's Personal Information Protection Act, inapplicable to federal political parties.  

It is astounding, and yet not surprising at all (federal parties have engaged in repeated similar efforts), that federal political parties would seek to undermine rights so crucial to democracy in this way.  

Federal parties must truly fear public revelations about the personal data that they hold, what they are doing with that data, and/or any threat to the datified campaigning methods they use. 

See my recent appearance on Michael Geist's Lawbytes podcast here, recent parliamentary testimony here (from the previous effort last parliamentary session to accomplish the same goal), and past related blog posts on political parties and privacy here.

 

Lawbytes podcast: How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards

My interview on Michael Geist's Lawbytes podcast, How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards," is available here.

Canada's Bill C-65 would weaken privacy

Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, is currently being considered by Canada's House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I testified about the bill's privacy provisions on October 31, 2024 (watch).

C-65 is posed as a strengthening of the privacy provisions of the Canada Elections Act that apply to Canadian political parties. However, the bill falls massively short of the standard principles used in privacy laws.  The B.C. Supreme Court recently ruled that the province’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), which is a full and proper privacy regime, applies to federal political parties. The federal Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Green Party seek to appeal the ruling, and Bill C-65 seems like an effort to undermine or displace PIPA.

My commentary about the bill, "10 privacy violations in the federal government’s proposed changes to the Canada Elections Act," is available here.

Algorithmic Gender and Race Bias: a Canadian Broadcast Policy Concern?

My new article "Discoverability and Algorithmic Recommendations in Video Streaming Platforms:Algorithmic Gender and Race Bias as a Canadian Broadcast Policy Concern" with Fizza Kulvi, Faiza Hirji, Manveetha Muddaluru, Emmanuel Appiah, Leandra Greenfield, Erica Rzepeci, and Christine Quail recently came out.  

Our article examines discoverability and algorithmic recommendation systems in video streaming systems like Netflix or YouTube. We were particularly interested in looking at gender and race bias in algorithmic recommenders, and how concerns about those biases were seen:

1) by creators, policymakers, and industry members, and 

2) by parliamentarians in debates about Canada's Online Streaming Act.

We found that while algorithmic video streaming recommenders are often portrayed as neutral and as responding to users' interests by parliamentarians and video streaming platforms, our interview participants - and research on recommendation systems - are far more skeptical.

Under Online News Act and proposed regulation, non-monetary "compensation" to news organizations could deepen dependency

During the debates over the Online News Act, I raised the concern that, under the Act, Meta or Google could provide training, technical support, technologies or technology licensing discounts as a form of "remuneration" to news organizations, rather than cash--deepening  the integration of news organizations with digital platform data and technologies.  Google/Meta could invest in specific projects, or encourage and/or incentivize certain types of content such as video content.

My concerns were amplified when, on May 3 Jason Kee, Governmental Affairs and Public Policy Counsel for Google Canada, told the Senate Committee that would like to count simple "in-kind programs, training and other kinds of programming and support" towards its exemption criteria for smaller publishers. This would leave small publishers particularly dependent on Google/Meta technologies and training (and big publishers also) - just the kind of thing that becomes a huge problem when Google/Meta decides to abandon news provision for the entire country.  If news organizations are dependent on Google/Meta technologies and training, all of that first of all favours Googe/Meta's business model and data collection, all news organizations' investment goes down the tubes when Google/Meta stops providing news in Canada because it no longer suits their profit margins and global business strategies.

Last week the government announced a proposed regulatory scheme that would affirm that "non-monetary offerings to news organizations, such as training or other products, be included in the CRTC’s evaluation of exemption criteria." Discouragingly, this implies that non-monetary offerings would constitute "compensation" to news organizations.  On the bright side, it also hopefully leaves the door open to public discussion or even disclosure of such non-monetary compensation by the CRTC in its decision-making.

Senator Paula Simons, former journalist, made note of the sorts of concerns I was raising in a speech to the Senate: 

What happens if formerly independent Canadian news organizations become utterly beholden to Google and Meta for their survival? What happens if we give these two American behemoths even more control over what we read, watch and hear? We have already had a taste of this because, in an effort to head off Bill C-18, both Google and Facebook have been busy striking secret side deals with major publishers across the country. Read a story about Bill C-18 in the media right now and you will quite often see a little note at the bottom of the page informing you that the media outlet is already receiving some form of compensation through a private agreement with one of the big social media giants. It will then be left to you to judge whether that subsidy has had any impact on the way the story about Google or Facebook was reported.

She argued that: 

Facebook and Google have already had a direct and detrimental impact on the way newsrooms present their stories whether it’s because Facebook enthusiastically insisted that newspapers pivot to video, which largely turned out to be a waste of time, resources and talent, or whether it was because Google led newsrooms to rewrite and torture ledes and headlines in a vain attempt to search engine optimize their stories.

There are two big problems: 

1) permitting technology, training, and other non-cash options to stand in for "compensation" to news will deepen the problem of dependency already faced by Canadian media, and 

2) under C-18, the transparency provisions in the Online News Act are not sufficient to guarantee Canadians, as specialists or general citizens, will be enabled to know and understand what kinds of non-cash influence Meta/Google may have in the news industry, as the compensation deals are private and public reporting of the details of individual bills - or even the broad sweep across the industry - is not afforded. The Independent Review by an auditor requires only extremely general industry-level information, and confidentiality provisions favour the privacy of both Google/Meta and news organizations.  We will have to see how this plays out

--

My June brief to the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on Bill C-18, the Online News Act, has been posted on the committee's site here.  My briefing makes the same points I outlined in my March 13 piece: "The Online News Act could give Google and Meta too much influence over Canadian news organizations."

Will the Online News Act give Google and Meta too much influence over Canadian news organizations?

I have posted a piece in The Conversation titled "The Online News Act could give Google and Meta too much influence over Canadian news organizations." It argues that Canadian news organizations could be come more dependent on Google and Meta through non-monetary compensation under agreements between online platforms and news organizations.

How does the collection of personal information by political parties affect elector engagement?

My new article with Julia Kalinina, Elizabeth Dubois, and Nicole Goodman, "Privacy and Canadian Political Parties: The Effects of the Data-Driven Campaign on Elector Engagement," is now available Open Access in the Canadian Journal of Political Science. 

Datified campaigning brings concerns about surveillance, divisiveness, digital redlining and elector autonomy. This article asks whether awareness of parties’ data collection practices affects willingness to engage with campaigns. 

We surveyed Canadians to answer this question, and found: 

• that respondents are not fully aware of political parties’ data collection practices,
• that awareness of parties’ collection of personal information may reduce electors’ willingness to interact with political parties online, and 
• respondents support the application of privacy law to political parties.  

Our team wrote about some of these findings in an article published in The Conversation in 2021, "Electronic tracking of voters is a thorny topic in a tight federal election race."

The Algorithmic Distribution of News: Policy Responses

My new edited collection with James Meese, The Algorithmic Distribution of News: Policy Responses, examines regulatory responses - and the responses of journalism organizations -  to the distribution of news by algorithms. It examines how news recommenders and aggregators like Google News and the Facebook news feed have challenged the traditional news gatekeepers and the revenue flows of news organizations.  Countries around the world have come up with a broad range of policy responses. The spectacular array of authors in this book book provide both reflections on these initial responses, as well as some food for thought about future directions. 

The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) claims to level the playing field … but for whom?

The Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11) claims to level the playing field … but for whom? Nawshaba Ahmed and I ask, in our piece published in The Conversation.

 See also my comments to the Heritage committee on algorithmic recommendations and C-11.

Comments to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on Bill C-11

44th Parliament, 1st Session
Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
Watch on ParlVu

My name is Sara Bannerman (she/her). I’m a Canada Research Chair in Communication Policy and Governance at McMaster University.

Today I will focus on discoverability and algorithmic bias. 

Governments around the are working on measures to ensure that algorithms are accountable.

There is a common misconception that streaming platforms’ recommend what the user wants to see.

Platforms show us what they want to show us. They show us what will keep us watching ads, purchasing advertised products, contributing data, and subscribing.

Platforms are not neutral.  They serve their business interests. As well, there are three types of bias I am concerned about. These biases can affect both users and content providers. 

First, there could be bias if algorithms are used to select content for carriage on a streaming service--

• predicting how many viewers the content will attract. 
• A poor algorithmic showing could sink a content provider’s chances of being shown.

Second, there can be bias in the recommendation algorithms that users use to discover content.

• Recommenders often display popularity bias, recommending what’s popular and concentrating users’ viewing on a smaller catalog of content.
• This can be unfair to artists in the “long tail” and to users who like something other than popular content.
• It could be unfair to Canadian content—including user-generated content,

Third, users’ own biases can be amplified

• Beyond users’ biases towards or against Canadian content, if some users have a gender bias, for example, this could be amplified in the recommendations that respond to past viewing habits.
• Such biases can form a feedback loop that can spread throughout the system.

The research in this area is only recently developing.

CRTC intervention in the algorithms raises many difficult problems.  It may not be the first, most likely, or best answer to them.  The CRTC has said, today, it does not want to play that role. But the Commission could play a role in bringing such problems to light.

There are concerns that requiring discoverability would infringe on freedom of expression.
Streaming services’ user interfaces and recommendations may be forms of expression, and, if so, regulatory interventions could constitute a limit on that expression.
There are legitimate concerns that promoting some content could mean demoting other content, among other concerns.
Sometimes limits on expression are justified, but they must be justified.
To understand whether any justification exists, or even just to understand, we need data.

It may be that the best role for the CRTC will be to monitor and call attention to problems, not just with the discoverability of Canadian content, but also with recommender biases relating to other Canadian values, so that civil society and others can intervene.
The CRTC can only do that if it has data.

The provisions on information-provision and information disclosure in the bill are important to the study and examination of discoverability algorithms and data, and to the CRTC’s potential work with outside organizations on this matter. 

It may be necessary to require platforms to collect certain data to permit these examinations to happen.

• The general powers section of the Bill could include (under n and o) the phrase “collection and provision”
• The general powers section of the Bill could name information on discoverability as information the Commission can demand.

I strongly disagree with proposals that would allow a company to prevent the disclosure of information in section 25.3.[1]

The Canadian broadcasting system has often served dominant groups.
It has also been open to change and improvement based the work of civil society and others.

We need to ensure that the discoverability mechanisms of online streaming platforms are also open to critique and change through public transparency, debate, and data. 

Thank you.

---

[1] See Appendix for details

Appendix

Amendments to C-11, for consideration

 9 (1) (n) the collection and provision to the Commission […]

9 (1) (o) the collection and provision to the Commission […]

9 (1) (o) (v) information related to discoverability; and [NEW]

Comments on Netflix’s Proposed amendments to Bill C-10, for consideration

I object to Netflix’s proposed amendments to Bill C-10 section 25.3, which could equally be proposed to be applied to C-11.

If their proposed 25.3 (4 and 5) (a) (a.1) is adopted (I do not support this), it should read “must not knowingly be publicly disclosed or made available […].” This would permit the CRTC working privately with groups to examine discoverability mechanisms and other matters.