Election 2019: Comparing Party Platforms

How Canada’s major federal political parties compare on issues related to privacy and access to information

The table below uses publicly available information contained within the platforms of Canada’s four major political parties: the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, and the Green Party.

FIPA is a non-partisan organization and this chart is only intended to be an easily accessible guide on how the parties are addressing issues related to privacy and access to information. It is not an endorsement of any particular party.

For more information about the specific statements issued by each party leading to these determinations, please see the information below the chart.

 Liberal PartyConservative PartyNew Democratic PartyGreen Party
Totals6329
Increase the powers of the Privacy Commissioner of CanadaYesUnclearYesYes
Increase the powers of the Information Commissioner of CanadaNothing stated Nothing statedNothing statedYes
Improve Access to InformationNothing statedNothing statedNothing statedYes
Ensure Political Parties fall under Canada's federal privacy legislation Nothing stated Nothing statedNothing stated Yes
Mandatory breach notifications YesUnclearNothing statedYes
Give citizens the ability to erase basic personal information from platforms YesUnclearNothing statedYes
Give citizens data portability YesNothing statedNothing stated Yes
Create stronger cyberbullying protectionsYesYesYesNothing stated
Create mandatory plain language consent agreementsNothing statedYesNothing stated Nothing stated
Give citizens ability to review and challenge amount of personal information being collected by governmentYesNoNothing stated Yes
Create regulations related to Artificial IntelligenceNothing stated YesNothing statedYes

Each of these determinations are based on the platform documents released by the major four political parties in 2019:

Liberal Party of Canada Platform 2019

Conservative Party of Canada Platform 2019

New Democratic Party of Canada Platform 2019

Green Party of Canada Platform 2019

Below are the quotes and page numbers where each of these determinations can be corroborated.

We encourage all political parties to provide us with additional details about their commitments, or to provide us with clarification on their positions, by writing to us (fipa@fipa.bc.ca).

Increase the powers of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Liberal Party: Yes. Included in Canada’s Digital Charter (40-41).

Conservative Party: Unclear. “We will employ sensible regulation, rigorous standards, and strong oversight over the personal information, data, and privacy of Canadians” (74).

New Democratic Party: Yes. The “New Democrats will work to strengthen privacy protections for Canadians by boosting the power of the Privacy Commissioner to make and enforce orders” (102).

Green Party: Yes. “Significantly increase the powers of the Privacy Commissioner, in particular to protect identity and personal data, and to enforce privacy laws” (75).

Increase the powers of the Information Commissioner of Canada

Liberal Party: Nothing stated.

Conservative Party: Nothing stated.

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. Will “[s]trengthen the role and protect the independence of parliamentary officers including … the Information Commissioner” (73). They will also “[a]uthorize the Information Commissioner to order the release of information” (74)

Improve Access to Information

Liberal Party: Nothing stated.

Conservative Party: Nothing stated.

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. They will do this by: removing all fees except filing fee; creating enforceable deadlines; put parliament, the PMO’s office, and all minister’s offices, within scope of ATI; ensure public interest comes before secrecy; allow Information Commissioner to review and determine if cabinet confidence applies; create a duty to document regarding ATI decisions (74).

Ensure Political Parties fall under Canada’s federal privacy legislation

Liberal Party: Nothing stated.

Conservative Party: Nothing stated.

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. “Require political parties to follow the Privacy Act, without exceptions” (75).

Mandatory breach notifications

Liberal Party: Yes. Included in Canada’s Digital Charter. Also includes compensation (40-41).

Conservative Party: Unclear. Will establish “binding cyber security standards for critical infrastructure sectors and penalties for non-compliance” to protect Canadians from “largescale data breaches” (75).

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. Will “[c]reate mandatory data breach reporting for all government departments, companies, banks and political parties” (75).

Give citizens the ability to erase basic personal information from platforms

Liberal Party: Yes. Included in Canada’s Digital Charter (40-41).

Conservative Party: Unclear. “We will employ sensible regulation, rigorous standards, and strong oversight over the personal information, data, and privacy of Canadians” (74).

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. “Require companies to … to delete personal information from company databases when requested by that person. Individuals would have the ‘right to be forgotten.’” (75).

Give citizens data portability

Liberal Party: Yes. Included in Canada’s Digital Charter (40-41).

Conservative Party: Nothing stated.

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. “Require companies to grant access to all information they hold on an individual” (75).

Create stronger cyberbullying protections

Liberal Party: Yes. Included in Canada’s Digital Charter (40-41) Will also “move forward with new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant financial penalties. This will also include other online harms, such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda. Because hate speech continues to harm people offline as well, we will also look at options for civil remedies for victims of hate speech” (47-48).

Conservative Party: Yes. Will introduce the Cyberbullying Accountability Act, legislation that “prohibits the use of a phone or the internet to threaten or advocate self-harm”, create civil liability so that “the parents, guardians, or account holders of cyberbullies can be held liable” (74).

New Democratic Party: Yes. Will convene a “national working group to counter online hate and protect public safety, and make sure that social media platforms are responsible for remove [sic] hateful and extremist content before it can do harm” (96).

Green Party: Nothing stated.

Create mandatory plain language consent agreements

Liberal Party: Nothing stated.

Conservative Party: Yes. Will also only allow “data that is necessary to provide the service” to be collected (74).

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Nothing stated.

Give citizens ability to review and challenge amount of personal information being collected by government

Liberal Party: Yes. Included in Canada’s Digital Charter (40-41).

Conservative Party: No. Will increase funding to police infrastructure: “To better support local law enforcement, a new Conservative government will commit $30 million over five years to purchase new equipment. This would benefit mid-sized communities the most, since they do not have the same budget as larger police programs to access technology. We will create a grant program so that our law enforcement has access to every tool and technology available. This will empower law enforcement to keep our communities and neighbourhoods safe” (64).

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. “Change the law to require the Communications Security Establishment and CSIS to get a warrant before intruding on Canadians’ communications”; “Prohibit the routine surveillance of Canadians who protest against the government and the sharing of protesters and NGO staff information with the National Energy Board, and others”; and “Prohibit cyber surveillance and bulk collection of data by intelligence and police agencies” (75).

Create regulations related to Artificial Intelligence

Liberal Party: Nothing stated.

Conservative Party: Yes. Will establish “regulatory standards for ethical and secure use” of Artificial Intelligence (74).

New Democratic Party: Nothing stated.

Green Party: Yes. Will create parliamentary committee to examine issues that include Artificial Intelligence (46).

Commissioner’s Order protects privacy while promoting democratic values

Vancouver, August 30, 2019 – Yesterday, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for BC, Michael McEvoy, issued an Order stating that BC’s privacy laws apply to the electoral district associations of federal political parties, despite their contestations.

The Order affirms that all organizations in BC, including those created by federal political parties, must be held to the same standard when it comes to the protection of privacy. Under BC’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), individuals have the right to know what personal information is in the possession of an organization, how this information is used, how it has been acquired, and where it has been shared.

Until yesterday’s Order, federal political parties operated as if they were not subject to any privacy laws that grant people these vital information rights, which in turn negatively affects both privacy and Canada’s democratic values. Electoral politics are increasingly shaped by big data. The Cambridge Analytica scandal gave the public a glimpse into how data collection, database development, and micro-targeting have become key components in political parties’ electoral toolkits.

“It is our position that the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by political parties at any level should be subject to strong and enforceable privacy legislation,” says Mike Larsen, FIPA President. “People should have a right to know how political parties are using their personal information, and collection and use should be based on the principle of informed consent.”

FIPA was issued a notice of hearing in this case and made a submission that challenged the argument that the application of PIPA to a federal electoral district association would infringe on the Charter of Rights Freedoms, which Commissioner McEvoy has agreed with. In the next phase of this process, the Commissioner will consider whether the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by the electoral district association complies with PIPA.

Contact:

Mike Larsen, President

BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association

Email: fipa (at) fipa.bc.ca

Phone: 604-739-9788

On the podcast: The History of FIPPA

On this episode of the show, we go back to a time before British Columbia had freedom of information or privacy laws—to the year 1990—and find out what it was like to request information from government.

Then, we find out how a small group of dedicated individuals were able to advocate, draft, and ultimately bring about B.C.’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, bringing this province one step closer to the ideal of open government.

We’ll hear about how the new legislation offered the promise of greater government transparency and accountability, and about what’s transpired in the nearly thirty years since the Act was passed.

Guests on this episode include: FIPA co-founder Darrell Evans, FIPA co-founder and former Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis, current Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy, former Attorney General Colin Gableman, former MLA Barry Jones, current MP Murray Rankin, and the Vancouver Sun’s legislative reporter Vaughn Palmer.

Democratic implications of privacy issues take centre stage at ‘Privacy in Peril’

By Carlo Javier

It was fitting to end Data Privacy Day on Jan. 28 with a talk called Privacy in Peril.

Organized by the Vancouver Public Library and the SFU Library, the event saw Mike Larsen of the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) and Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) cast a light on modern issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy.

Larsen opened the discussions with a statement that might best capture the complicated nature of privacy amidst our increasingly digital and interconnected world: “Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.” The principle is especially critical of the framework often used to analyze privacy – one that isolates issues as strictly individual-based cases (think consent forms, website cookie policy notifications). Larsen’s suggestion is to look at privacy with a holistic perspective and to see how privacy rights have implications not only to an individual, but to many other agents that may either be directly or indirectly involved.

He then put forward two concepts he deemed to be main pillars of the current state of privacy: Surveillance Capitalism as discussed in Shoshana Zuboff’s new book and Bernard E. Harcourt’s study on the Expository Society.


“Privacy is a collective good. Thinking about the perils that privacy faces right now requires us to think about privacy as a democratic good.”

– Mike Larsen

The two ideas were both entirely unsurprising, yet undeniably unsettling. While the monetization of data has become fairly well-known (and seemingly accepted), Larsen disputed the belief that the collection of our digital footprint is dedicated solely to economic means like marketing and advertising. I heard noticeable gasps from around the audience when he delved into the other side of surveillance, the one we don’t talk about enough: prediction of behaviour, political sentiment, and voting practices – and information such as these can open the possibility for the steering and manipulation of the public.

Micheal Vonn (left) of the BCCLA and Mike Larsen (right) of BC FIPA discusses the complicated state of privacy amidst an increasingly digital and interconnected society.

Although the discussion on the Expository Society veered towards a more academic vernacular, the subject in its most basic nutshell did hit close to home. It is essentially a critique on how the digital age and the dawn of social media have changed our habits, how we have become more incentivized and inclined to share personal information in public spaces, which in turn builds copious amounts of vulnerable data.

The concern about the safety of our data was a sentiment that Vonn echoed in her discussion, stating that we create more data than most places, but unfortunately, “we can’t really protect it.” Vonn also delved into sovereignty and transparency, citing the lack of ability to hold government bodies accountable, relative to the amount of access government has to our personal information. As for tips and solutions, Vonn proposed a tactic she admittedly described as unpopular – go analog. A self-confessed Luddite, Vonn spoke of the security measures created by simply leaving devices like laptops (and yes, even phones) at home when travelling or crossing the US-Canada border.

Although we only celebrate Data Privacy Day once a year, the discussion it generates allow for issues surrounding data, surveillance, and privacy to permeate our general discourse. And while the meaningful action that we seek can come so few and far between, these discussions do represent a small victory. At the end of the day, we want as many people talking and caring about these issues. After all, privacy is a collective good.

Eager to get involved in the fight for our rights? Click here to join the cause.

Carlo Javier is the community awareness and outreach coordinator at BC FIPA. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Communication Studies from Capilano University.