Should individual federal political parties (FPPs) be able to create & enforce their own rules governing how they collect, use, retain & share the personal information of Canadian electors (those eligible to vote) & those 14 years of age or older?

Should FPPs be able to use personal information to influence our vote without our consent? I don’t. Unfortunately, this is now the law in 🇨🇦.

Bill C-25, The Strong and Free Elections Act, includes important and long-needed amendments that fix the longest ballot issue, strengthen our defences against foreign interference, modernize our approach to disinformation, better protect candidates, party staff & election workers, etc. It also includes extensive FPP finance & spending reforms.

Ongoing efforts to carefully codify financial matters are crucial to maintaining trust in our democracy because a lack of uniform rules could give one party a lasting advantage over others. No one debates why FPP finances must be managed so carefully.

However, in this digital era, I’d argue that data is even more powerful & valuable than money. Data are like uranium — holding the ability to be both immensely beneficial & harmful. Without uniform controls, data become even more powerful than money.

Our democratic systems have had decades of experience managing the corrupting influence of money, but have had almost none when it comes to managing micro-targeting, voter suppression or psychological profiling, when these tactics are conducted digitally & at scale. That’s precisely why jurisdictions like the EU, UK & New Zealand, and BC & Quebec in 🇨🇦, have decided to regulate both.

We don’t know how FPPs use our data because no party is required to tell us what they have or do. Here’s what I’ve found out after questioning officials on the implications of Clause 36 in Bill C-25:

1. There are no consistent minimum standards that FPP privacy regimes must adhere to & the new higher financial penalties incentivize the parties to have a weaker voluntary privacy regime.

2. Voters don’t have the legal right to require FPPs to obtain their consent before the party begins to collect & use their identifiable personal information — data that goes well beyond what’s contained on the voters list.

3. FPPs aren’t restricted from purchasing personal information from data brokers & combining it with information contained on the voters list.

4. Voters have no legal right to know what identifiable personal information an FPP has gathered on them, or have those data deleted.

5. FPPs can share voters personal information with 3rd parties like provincial political parties & polling or social media firms. This can happen without the voters’ knowledge or consent, and those 3rd parties aren’t bound by PIPEDA, only the FPP’s internally drafted privacy policy.

6. FPPs are prohibited from selling electors’ personal information, but they aren’t prohibited from trading it for in-kind benefits.

7. Despite having no right to review what information an FPP holds on them, party websites tell electors that they can write them to correct or update their information.

8. FPPs face no restrictions on collecting identifiable personal information on minors. Only one party has explicitly chosen to not collect information on those under 14.

9. Individuals are only notified of a data breach if party officials take “appropriate steps” to review the situation, consult their own internal policies & determine that they think there is a “real risk” of “significant harm.” If they conclude otherwise, those affected will never know their information was compromised.

Here’s the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee report showing the circumstances under which they had to complete their study (in one day) and the fact that the witnesses that they wanted to question (the lawyers for the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP) were unavailable: lnkd.in/grheS9UC. Unfortunately, the Gov’t invoked closure on C-25 this week, and a Motion to delay, on behalf of the majority of Committee members, was narrowly defeated.

My 3rd Reading speech is below, and my 2nd Reading speech, where we raise questions about a bill, is here: lnkd.in/gD3Akan7