Bill C-65, currently before Parliament, would make changes to the Canada Elections Act. According to the liberal governmentit aims to “engage more people and increase confidence” among Canadians in elections.

But by weakening the privacy laws that apply to political parties, it could undermine both engagement and confidence in elections.

Since the introduction of Bill C-65, debate has focused on a provision that would move the fixed election date from October 20 to October 27, 2025. declared the purpose of this move is to avoid conflicts with other elections and Diwali. It would also be enable 80 deputies achieve the six years of service necessary to qualify for House of Commons pensions, even if the government has denied this is a factor in the proposed changes.

Opposition members claim that C-65 is in reality a “retirement bill.” But even more, Bill C-65 violates privacy.

Awareness

When my team of researchers from McMaster University, Brock University and the University of Ottawa Canadians surveyed, we found that few respondents were aware that parties can collect information about whether they voted, their email addresses, their political opinions, their ethnicity, their income, their online activities, their occupation, their social media identity or their religion.

Few people know that the fact that a canvasser knocks on the door is also – And in some cases, mainly — an opportunity for data collection.

THE Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed how personal information and social media can be used for political purposes.

Many Canadians may be rightly concerned about hackers stealing their information from a party database. Worse still, Cambridge Analytica opened eyes to the possibility of statistically inferring highly sensitive personal information such as income bracket, gender or personality type from more innocuous data.

Canadian-born whistleblower Christopher Wylie raised his concerns about how data can be used to target political ads in divisive or manipulative ways. Generative AI further increases this potential.

This is why privacy laws are important not only to protect the personal information of Canadians, but also to provide transparency about how democracy works.

Bill C-65 claims to provide a “comprehensive (personal information) regime” for political parties, but it is far from complete.

Nor does it subject political parties to 10 privacy principles considered essential to privacy regimes. In fact, it appears designed to undermine B.C.’s current privacy law.

THE The British Columbia Supreme Court recently ruled that the province’s Privacy Act applies to federal political parties. Federal Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Green Party seek to appeal the decisionand Bill C-65 could undermine the decision.

Privacy principles ignored

My team’s research suggests that failing to integrate them 10 basic privacy principles could threaten the government’s goals of increasing voter confidence and getting more people involved.

In its current form, Bill C-65 infringes on the existing privacy rights of Canadians. It does not respect the following fundamental principles of confidentiality:

Principle 1: Organizations must hold someone accountable for upholding fundamental privacy principles. Without law enforcement and fundamental principles, Bill C-65’s requirement to designate a privacy officer will result in little accountability.

Principle 2: The purposes of the collection must be identified. Instead, C-65 requires parties to provide “illustrative examples,” but not the full set of collection purposes.

Principle 3: Knowledge and consent must be given. Instead, C-65 virtually authorizes the collection and use of any type of personal information.

Most Canadians my team interviewed believed that sensitive information such as ethnicity, religion and social media information should “never” be collected and retained, or only with the “explicit consent” of the person. individual.

Bill C-65 would allow data brokers and technology companies working with a party to collect and potentially use any type of personal information.

Principle 4: Data collection should be limited. Instead, C-65 places no limits on the types of personal information that parties and “entities” can collect. My team’s work suggests placing the most sensitive types off limits.

Principle 5: Limit the use of personal information. Even if the C-65 incorporates two new limits, it does not prevent:

• Give personal information to third parties (such as social media companies or others);

• Use personal information to profile Canadians;

• Make statistical inferences about personality types, interests, opinions, religion, sexual orientation – or anything else; Or

• Uses involving AI.

Principle 6 and 7: Ensure the accuracy and protection of personal information. Instead, C-65 allows technology companies or any other entities working with political parties potentially unlimited access and use with little protection or oversight. In the light of a large number of companies which, as the anti-surveillance organization OpenMedia recently revealed, are used by political parties to take advantage of the interests of Canadians. data in the countryside, this is particularly worrying.

Principle 8: Requires the provision of detailed information about policies and practices regarding personal information. Although publication of a privacy policy is required under C-65, it does not require fully detailed information.

Principle 9: Gives individuals the right to access their own personal information held by the parties; C-65 does not do that.

Principle 10: Offers the right to file a complaint or challenge a party’s compliance with these principles. C-65 does not provide for any complaint system or external monitoring.

Distrust of political data collection

Our study found that awareness of data collection by political parties can reduce Canadians’ willingness to interact with parties online, which could harm their engagement.

We also found that increased awareness of data collection could fuel concerns about data collection, potentially undermining trust.

Very few respondents consider data collection important to the democratic process. If collection is indeed crucial for democracy, our respondents are not convinced.

Bill C-65, however, would help political parties exploit Canadians’ data without real limits, transparency or consent. This poses a threat to privacy, engagement and trust in political parties.

All federal parties currently benefit from the ability to collect and use the personal information of Canadians without applying it fully to themselves. Rather than criticizing its weak privacy provisions, critics are foolishly focusing on the bill’s implications for parliamentary pensions.