On misinformation

The Hill Times reports (see bottom header link) on the current status of Bill C-31 in the Senate. And it looks like the supposed defense of the bill is getting weaker and weaker, as the Cons are continuing their retreat into obfuscation and fabrication in trying to justify handing voters' birthdate information to political parties:

Because of the stronger provisions to identify voters at the polls under Bill C-31, the Voter ID Bill, Chief Electoral Office Marc Mayrand says birthdates are not necessary to add to the permanent voters' list, as proposed under the bill which the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee is currently studying...

Mr. Mayrand said that Elections Canada could not guarantee that the privacy of individuals would be 100 per cent protected because the list would be distributed to political parties. "The provision in Bill C-31 would allow a wide distribution of that information. Given the scope of that distribution, I am afraid that I could not fully guarantee the security or that it would be used at all times for the intended purpose. That information will be circulated beyond Elections Canada to a wide range of people with whom we do not have any relations," he said, adding however, that he "would ensure that every elector understood what information is being provided and how it will be used."

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.) told the committee in an earlier appearance however that if the information is abused, there would be consequences for breaching the Privacy Act. "I think it should be underlined that this is information that would be available to Elections Canada and the political parties. It wouldn't be more broadly available than that and there are provisions and penalties for improper use of that information. There are protections in place," he said.

So what's wrong with that claim? Under the Privacy Act, the only bodies which are obligated to do anything in particular with personal information are "government institutions" specifically listed in that Act's Schedules. And not surprisingly, political parties aren't included - meaning that once Elections Canada discloses information as required under C-31, there are absolutely no "protections in place" under the Privacy Act.

In contrast, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is listed as a government institution. But section 8(2)(b) of the Privacy Act permits government institutions to disclose information "in accordance with any Act of Parliament...that authorizes its disclosure" - and the Privacy Act doesn't allow any government institution to override its disclosure obligations under other legislation. Which means that nothing in the Privacy Act creates any protection against disclosure of birthdate data as required under C-31 - no matter what negative consequences are anticipated (or already known).

Contrary to Van Loan's supposed reassurances, any "protections" under the Privacy Act are limited to the inability of Elections Canada to disclose information any further than specifically mandated under C-31 or other statutes (including the disclosure provisions of the Privacy Act). But it should be obvious that it's the parties themselves, not Elections Canada, which offer would-be abusers of personal data the clearest path to that information - and Van Loan's attempt to conflate the two only serves to mislead the public about the complete lack of any protection where parties are involved.

Ultimately, the Privacy Act provides neither any protection for personal information once it's disclosed from Elections Canada to a political party, nor any means to stop the flow of information to (or otherwise punish) a party which is known to have misused it. And having already taken the step of recklessly voting for a bill which would lead to that dangerous outcome for voters at large, the Cons are now actively misleading the Senate to pretend that Canadians wouldn't be at risk.