Senate resists political campaigning privacy exemption by amending Bill C-4

A controversial legislative proposal (housed in Part 4 of Bill C-4) that threatens voters’ privacy has passed the Senate, but with a critical amendment.

The legislative proposal, which would effectively grant federal political parties a blank check with respect to their privacy practices, has followed a rocky path through the Senate, culminating in a vote on the Senate floor last night that saw the Bill amended to impose a three-year sunset clause.

Part 4 of Bill C-4 raises significant privacy concerns.

As the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (LCJC)’s review of the proposal conclu:

“Part 4 falls far short of the minimum standards required to protect the individual and national interests of Canadians, at a time when global experience indicates that these interests are increasingly at risk.”

l'ACLC Senate committee testimony emphasized how a data-driven approach to political campaigning poses a severe threat to privacy if left unchecked. A 2020 study in the United States, for example, found that one political party had amassed over 3,000 data points on every single voter in the United States. Earlier that same year, a data leak revealed a vast trove of data that was used by one campaign to, among other things, racially profile over 3.5 million voters in order to bombard them with social media ads with the objective of “deterring” them from voting.

In recognition of the growing risks posed by data-driven political messaging, other jurisdictions like the EU are already going further than the baseline privacy restrictions that Canada’s federal system still lacks. Late in 2025, an EU-wide regulation on political messaging came into effect, supplementing the EU’s general privacy laws by providing additional rules for political parties.

But Part 4 of Bill C-4 fails to put in place the most basic and internationally accepted privacy rules at the federal level. Any data practices would be fair game, as long as these are covered by general clauses on each political party’s privacy policy. Individuals will have no ability to access and correct data held by political parties.

Part 4 doesn’t stop at failing to put in place any meaningful privacy limitations at the federal level. It goes further. It aims to strip people of their future—and historic—privacy rights under any provincial laws stretching back to the year 2000.

This sweeping attempt at immunity for past and future privacy violations follows regulatory et court decisions affirming that BC privacy laws apply to federal political parties for their in-province riding activity (currently being heard by the BC Court of Appeal).

Despite the severe implications of Part 4, the amendments in question were buried in an omnibus bill focused primarily on financial matters. The government, with support of opposition political parties (notably excluding the Green Party), was set to fast-track this immunity provision through both houses of parliament with minimal debate, even seeking to bypass scrutiny of Part 4 by Senate legislative committee and, when this failed, imposing strict time limits on how long the proposal can be studied.

The Senate’s final consideration of the Bill saw multiple efforts to curb its more problematic elements. Senator Bernadette Clément moved that Part 4 be deleted in whole and when that proposal failed to pass Senator Paula Simons moved to add a number of privacy safeguards directly into the Bill. When this proposal also failed to garner enough support, a final motion from Senator Pierre Dalphond passed, amending the Bill so that its changes are reversed three years after it passes.

If passed with this sunset clause intact, Part 4 will seek to immunize federal political parties from privacy laws once Bill C-4 becomes law, including for historical violations stretching back to the year 2000.

But if the federal government fails to put comprehensive privacy protections in place within three years, provincial laws will reapply on a moving forward basis.

The sunset clause also further complicates an ongoing court case currently before the BC Court of Appeal. The appeal is considering whether BC’s privacy laws can be constitutionally reconciled with existing privacy provisions in the Loi électorale du Canada.

A lower court has already held there is no conflict, because the Loi électorale du Canada (CEA) imposes few meaningful privacy obligations and as a result political parties are able to comply with both the CEA and the BC privacy law.

The BC Court of Appeal will now have to decide whether the addition of Part 4’s provincial immunity provisions and the Senate’s sunset clause change this result.

The combined impetus of these two provisions—reflecting intent of both houses—is that the federal government can supersede provincial privacy laws, but only by putting a truly robust and comprehensive privacy regime in place for political parties at the federal level.

The sunset clause amendment has been communicated back to the House of Commons for its consideration and, if rejected, the Senate will need to decide if it insists on its amendment.

Ultimately, political parties cannot be left to their own devices when determining how and to what degree they collect personal data. A comprehensive framework is urgently needed. CCLA calls on the federal political parties to accept the Senate’s amendment and move quickly towards the adoption of robust privacy rules at the federal level.

Read CCLA’s Opening Remarks in its Testimony before LCJC.

Read CCLA’s dossier législatif, submitted to the House Finance Committee (FINA)