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 deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”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

 

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.

Does political parties' data collection affect democratic engagement?

In our piece published in The Conversation, Julia Kalinina, Elizabeth Dubois, Nicole Goodman and I ask whether political parties' collection of personal information might make electors less willing to interact with political parties.  A longer peer-reviewed article about our research is in progress.

Privacy and Smart Cities: A Canadian Survey

 My research with Angela Orasch on privacy and smart cities has now been published in the Canadian Journal of Urban Research.  

Privacy and smart cities: A Canadian survey

This paper reports the results of a national survey of Canadians about smart city privacy. Our research questions were: How concerned are Canadians about smart city privacy? How do these concerns intersect with age, gender, ethnicity, and location? More, what are the expectations of Canadians with regards to their ability to control, use, or opt-out of data collection in smart city context? What rights and privileges do Canadians feel are appropriate with regard to data self-determination, and what types of data are considered more sensitive than others? In part two of this paper, we review existing literature on privacy and smart cities, particularly in Canada. In part three, we outline the method used in our survey. In part four, we present the findings of our national survey on Canadian attitudes towards privacy in a smart city context. We conclude by summarizing our findings and setting out possible areas for future research.

 

This study was funded by the  Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). The views expressed herein are those of the project researchers and do not necessarily reflect those of the OPC.  This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Canada Research Chairs program and McMaster University. The authors wish to thank  Emmanuel Appiah, Charles Breton, Michelle Dion, David Fewer, Nicole Goodman, Keri Greiman, Blayne Haggart, Jean-Noé Landry, Sumana Naidu, Peck Sangiambut, Teresa Scassa, Chranjot Shokar, Maureen Smith, Ian Steinberg, Natasha Tusikov, Clifton van der Linden, and Earl Washburn.  Any errors are our own.

New book out: Canadian Communication Policy and Law

 My new book Canadian Communication Policy and Law has just been published!



The book is available in print and e-book formats and will be available for short-term rental on VitalSource starting in the fall.

“At last, a book on Canadian communication policy that thoroughly integrates critical theory including political economy, gender, and race-based approaches, as well as Indigenous and postcolonial analysis. Bannerman’s crystal-clear prose and exhaustive research provide readers with the definitive guide to who benefits from public policy in a digital age.”
    —Vincent Mosco, Queen’s University, Author of The Smart City in a Digital World

“With its robust attention to critical race theory and intersectionality, Bannerman’s book enriches scholarship in Canadian communication policy and law. The book tackles some of the most pressing communication and digital policy issues today, highlighting in particular the imbrication of power and politics and the importance of upholding the often-vexed nature of the public interest.”
—Leslie Regan Shade, Professor, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto

 "This exciting and innovative new text from Sara Bannerman brings a diverse range of critical perspectives to bear on enduring issues and pressing concerns in communications policy, law, and regulation in the 21st Century. The scope is as ambitious as it is impressive. At each step of the way, Bannerman deftly guides readers through the hotly contested issues that will continue to shape the terrain of intellectual property, freedom of expression, privacy and data protection, telecommunications, broadcasting, and internet regulation for years to come.”
—Dwayne Winseck, Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University

“This work is immensely valuable in many respects—it offers an engaging introduction to a wide range of theoretical approaches that are made accessible through clear prose and compelling real-world examples. Unlike many introductory texts, which present perspectives on law and policy in a neutral fashion, this work offers a vigorous critique of Canada’s legal and regulatory communications framework—a regime that, while neutral in its face, serves to reinforce inequity and preserve the status quo.”
—Lisa Taylor, Associate Professor, School of Journalism, Ryerson University

“Sara Bannerman offers a unique primer on a range of Canadian policy and legal issues pertaining to media and communications; its expansive scope is unparalleled. What especially stands out about this book is its attention to the underlying power structures that shape policy and law, as well as its innovative approach to guiding readers through the process of legal research. This text is essential for anyone interested in how Canadian media and communications are shaped by law and policy.”
—Tamara Shepherd, Communication, Media and Film, University of Calgary

“Canada’s rapidly-changing communications system requires thoughtful analysis of both long-standing and emergent issues, from intellectual property law to telecommunications policy. Synthesizing decades of research and legal precedent, Dr. Bannerman unpacks core debates from various theoretical and normative standpoints, paying close attention to power relations and systemic bias, and offering readers a framework to engage in policy research. This is a valuable resource that connects communications policies with the lived experiences of the diverse individuals and groups who make up Canadian society.”
—Rob McMahon, Communications and Technology, University of Alberta

 

Summary

This essential resource examines the central issues in Canadian communication policy and law, including freedom of expression, censorship, broadcasting policy, telecommunications policy, internet regulation, defamation, privacy, government surveillance, intellectual property, and more. Taking a critical stance, Sara Bannerman draws attention to unequal power structures by asking the question, whom does Canadian communication policy and law serve?

The in-depth discussions consider fundamental theories for analyzing law and policy issues, such as pluralist, libertarian, critical political economy, feminist, queer, critical race, critical disability, postcolonial, and intersectional theories. Accessibly written and featuring further readings, a glossary, and a chapter on legal and policy research and citation, this book provides a superb introduction to the field for students in media studies and communications programs, while also synthesizing advanced critical analysis of key problems in Canadian communication policy and law.

 

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: Whom Do Law and Policy Serve?
Chapter 2: Introduction to the Canadian Legal System
Chapter 3: Freedom of Expression and Censorship
Chapter 4: Defamation
Chapter 5: Privacy
Chapter 6: Government Surveillance
Chapter 7: Intellectual Property
Chapter 8: Telecommunications Regulation
Chapter 9: Broadcasting Regulation
Chapter 10: Internet Regulation
Chapter 11: Access to Information
Chapter 12: Legal and Policy Research and Citation

Conclusion
Glossary
List of Acronyms
Bibliography
Index

Political parties' data collection may turn voters off

My recent piece in The Conversation, written by Julia Kalinina, Nicole Goodman and I, explores our research on how electors respond to political parties' data collection practices.

Smart city privacy: a survey

This piece, published in The Conversation, presents my research with Angela Orasch on Canadians' attitudes towards privacy in the context of smart cities.

You can find out more about our project at smartcityprivacy.ca

Why was Canada's response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal so weak?

Why was Canada's response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal so weak?  Charnjot Shokar and I explore in this piece, published on The Conversation.

My Questions for Facebook at Canadian Ethics Committee

On Thursday, Kevin Chan, Global Directeur and Head of Public Policy at Facebook Canada, and  Robert Sherman, Facebook's Deputy Chief Privacy Officer, will appear before Canada's House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Here are some questions I would ask them, if I had the chance:

• Political parties’ use of Facebook
• What data have Canadian political parties’ had access to through parties' past and current Facebook apps?
• Basic Facebook data (names, photos, and email addresses)?
• Phone numbers, location?
• Call and text history?
• Events and check-ins?
• Likes?
• Interests?
• Political affiliation?
• Do Canadian political parties, or other third-parties, use any ad targeting techniques that might cause concern?
• Privacy
• What third-party personal information (such as data Facebook purchased from data brokers or other outside companies) has Facebook acquired about Facebook users? 
• Consumer data?
• Purchase histories?
• Credit records?
• What are shadow profiles, and how does Facebook create profiles about people who are not users of Facebook?  
• How can people who are not Facebook users opt out of being profiled, or give their consent to being profiled?
• How can Canadian Facebook users access, correct, and delete that third-party personal information and users' surfing data (obtained through Facebook social plugins, analytics, the Facebook Pixel, or the Facebook Audience Network)? How can Canadians who are not Facebook users access, correct, and delete that third-party personal information and surfing data?
• How long is third-party-obtained data and users' surfing data retained?  When is it deleted? 
• Who is the designated person at Facebook who Canadians can contact to obtain their personal information or to correct it, and what is the contact information for that person?
• Election Integrity
• Facebook has announced that it supports the US' Honest Ads Act.  It has also promised a public archive of ads (similar to what I suggested in a recent op-ed), to be ready in June.  A crowdsourced archive has also been announced by the CBC.  To confirm, will the Facebook ad archive be made available in Canada?  When?  Will  it expand the current election integrity initiative so that: 
• the archive is publicly available to those not logged in to Facebook?
• the archive is searchable: 
• by party and/or candidate;
• by issue?
• the archive contains not only currently-running ads, but also all past ads?
• Will it contain: 
• a description of the targeted audience;
• the amount spent on the ad;
• impressions delivered; and
• demographics of audience reached?
• Facebook's relationship with Canadian political parties
• What sort of services, sales, training, or advice have Facebook employees or contractors provided to Canadian political parties?
• Have Facebook employees or contractors provided training on how to use your service to target users, or to create apps? Please describe.
• Have Facebook employees or contractors provided advice on how to use your service to target users, or how to create apps? Please describe.
• Where were Facebook employees or contractors who offered services, sales, advice, or training located? Were they in Canada? 
• Have Facebook employees or contractors ever been embedded in Canadian political parties' campaigns? Has any Facebook employee dedicated more than 25% of their time to any one Canadian election or leadership campaign?
• What was the billing structure for these services?
• How are Facebook's relationships with political parties' campaigns kept separate from Facebook's policy efforts, such as Facebook's position on network neutrality or on  Canadian privacy legislation?  

Universities should educate, not police copyright

My op-ed on why universities should focus on educating faculty and students about copyright rather than online copyright enforcement is available on The Conversation here and in various other publications.

Who should own big data?

Big data has a lot to offer, from curing disease to fostering economic development to fostering transparency.  At the same time, from government mass surveillance to data leaks, the misuses of big data seem as pervasive as its uses.

Who owns big data?  What rights do--and should--its owners have over what is done with it? Two different answers to this question have been posed.  The first would allow free use of big data for non-profit scientific research.  The second would release IP control of big data for commercial research also.

As noted in a recent paper by Handke, Guibault and Vallbé, the answer to the question of what IP rights subsist in big data varies by country.  Research using mined data may, in some countries, be constrained by copyright and other IP laws, while in others (including Canada and the United States), copyright ownership in data may not stand in the way of researchers seeking to data mine.

Two international initiatives: The Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age and the World Intellectual Property Organization's proceedings toward the creation of a new international instrument on limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities, seek to ensure internationally that copyright does not stand in the way of the ability to mine data for research.

At WIPO, the African Group of countries has proposed that non-profit scientific research be exempted from copyright.  They propose that:

The reproduction and reuse [...] of any lawfully obtained copyrighted work for purposes of not-for-profit scientific research, including storage, archiving, linking, data mining procedures, data manipulation, and virtual scientific experiments subject to attribution of the sources used to the extent reasonably feasible

should not constitute copyright infringement (p. 33; emphasis added).

While the WIPO proposal focuses on non-profit scientific research, a second initiative--the Hague Declaration--would also permit commercial data mining.  Further, it encourages research organizations, universities, and businesses; and those using Creative Commons licenses, to actively make data available publicly available for research.

Corporate owners of big data might be alarmed at the latter declaration.  Should individuals be alarmed as well?

Should we be concerned about giving up IP ownership of personal data?  

Scholar Neil Lawrence has argued that people should have ownership of their data:

There are opportunities and risks with the accumulation of data, just as there are for the accumulation of capital. However, one thing seems clear: we need to increase the power of the people. Banks pay interest; perhaps we should be paid directly for the use of our personal data. We need to be made aware of the value of our data and be given rights to control who accesses it. We need to form a data-democracy: data governance for the people, by the people and with the people’s consent.

Whether this ownership does or should take the form of intellectual property, or some other form, is a question worth considering.[1]  Is a person not the author of their own personal data?

While the two international initiatives outlined  above are likely intended to address corporate ownership of big data, personal ownership of the personal data that makes up big data should also be considered.  

It seems clear that, in an age where privacy laws fall short in constraining mass surveillance and protecting privacy online, a stronger medicine may be required.  As the ethics surrounding big data continues to evolve, throwing away ownership of our data in both commercial and non-commercial contexts may be a precipitous move.  Some form of personal ownership of personal data--especially ownership that would prevent unauthorized commercial use of data--could be a useful tool in an increasingly pitted battle over data ownership and control.

----

[1]. Scholars have considered this question from various angles. Pamela Samuelson has argued that, while an intellectual property approach to personal data may not be appropriate, an approach based on moral rights may be worth exploring. The idea of ownership of personal data, and the problems associated with such ownership, continue to be explored.