A clause in the federal government’s affordability bill could have lasting consequences for voter privacy and democratic accountability, says one McMaster expert.  

Bill C-4, originally introduced before Parliament took their summer break, includes a controversial provision that would exempt federal political parties from provincial privacy laws, sparking concern among advocates and legal scholars.  

Sara Bannerman, a professor in the department of Communication Studies and Media Arts, explains why critics are concerned and how the proposal could impact voters.  

What is Part 4 of Bill C-4 and what does it do in terms of privacy law? 

Part 4 of the bill explicitly states that provincial and territorial privacy laws do not apply to federal political parties. This appears to be a direct response to a court ruling in British Columbia, where the province’s stronger privacy laws were found to apply to federal parties. The bill seems designed to override that decision and prevent similar rulings in the future.  

Why is the exemption of political parties from privacy laws so significant? 

It’s significant because British Columbia’s law gives people the right to consent to the collection of their personal information. These political parties are collecting huge amounts of sensitive political and personal information about Canadians without asking for their consent and without transparency. British Columbia’s privacy law, according to the recent judgement, would require parties to change those practices. 

What’s more, B.C. law also provides a right of access, meaning you can request to know what information parties have about you, and you can request correction of that personal information. Without that, Canadians have no way of knowing what data political parties have or how it’s being used.  C-4 would remove this key layer of accountability for federal parties.  

What kind of personal data might political parties collect? 

Parties collect information about political views, demographic details, sometimes including sensitive information, and online activity. For example, whether you’ve signed petitions, donated to a party, or visited certain websites. But the larger point is we don’t know.  

We don’t have the right to request this information or see how it’s being used. Parties may also draw inferences, like inferring, through statistical profiling, that someone supports a cause based on their behaviour. This permits targeting them with specific political messaging. This data could also be shared with tech companies or other third parties, with no transparency.  

What are some of the risks to voters if the bill becomes law?  

There are several risks. First, the continued use of data-driven political campaigning can deepen polarization and undermine collective political decision-making. It can shift politics away from community-building and toward targeted, often divisive messaging.  

Second, without strong privacy laws for political parties, like those in British Columbia, there’s little protection for how our data is collected, used and shared by federal parties. That data could be used in ways we never intended or even find out about: At borders, by future governments, or by third parties like tech companies. The lack of transparency and oversight makes these risks especially concerning.  

We give our data away constantly. Do you think people understand the value of their data?  

No, not fully. Most of us don’t know what data is being collected, how that data might be used or even the inferences that could be created by what we unwittingly leave behind. Even when we agree to terms and conditions, we often don’t understand the implications.  

Also, the word ‘give’ is interesting – I think that’s part of the ideology that’s at work here. This framing shifts responsibility onto individuals when the real issue is systemic and is rooted in how tech companies and political parties operate. It suggests we’ve made an informed choice, but we often can’t make that choice because we lack the necessary information. The individualization of that choice is part of the broader legal and political ideology that supports these datafied tech companies, their operations, and datafied campaigning. 

What would meaningful privacy protections for political parties look like? 

The first step would be to apply standard privacy principles, like those used in most privacy laws to political parties. These include basic protections like consent, access, and correction rights. 

But we also need to go further. The current privacy framework focuses on individual consent, which doesn’t work well in today’s data environment. People often can’t fully understand or control how their data is used. We need collective protections and rules developed with input from citizen groups that reflect how data is shared and used across networks and communities. 

Governments should support these conversations and work with citizens to define appropriate uses of data. Right now, there’s a power imbalance: Governments have so much to gain from working hand in hand with tech companies that there’s some real political weakness there for citizens. It leaves citizens with limited influence over how their data is handled. 

Is there anything people can do now to protect their data if they’re concerned about this bill?

They can talk to their political representatives. The problem is that the way things are set up, trying to protect your data by not providing that data is not a good solution, because it means disengaging from political processes and political parties. That’s not a good solution. 

We need to push for protections that reflect our collective interests as Canadians. Different communities face different risks when it comes to data use—whether it’s at the border, by government agencies, or through third-party sharing. We need to make it clear that we don’t want our government engaging in highly targeted, data-driven campaigning without oversight.