Appeared in the Toronto Star on March 28, 2015 as Plenty of Fish, Avis Fines Show Anti-Spam Law Has Teeth As the launch of the Canadian anti-spam law neared last spring, critics warned that enforcement was likely to present an enormous challenge. Citing the global nature of the Internet and […]
Articles by: Michael Geist
Privacy Commissioner of Canada Rules Bell’s Targeted Ad Program Violates Canadian Law
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has released the long-awaited decision on Bell’s targeted ads program. The Commissioner’s press release soft-pedals the outcome – “Bell advertising program raises privacy concerns” – but the decision is clear: Bell’s so-called relevant ads program violates Canadian privacy law. As I wrote earlier this year, the key issue in the case centered on whether Bell should be permitted to use an opt-out consent mechanism in which its millions of customers are all included in targeted advertising unless they take pro-active steps to opt-out, or if an opt-in consent model is more appropriate. Given the detailed information collected and used by Bell, I argued that opt-in consent was the right approach.
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada agrees:
In our view, for the reasons expressed above, the RAP clearly involves the use of sensitive personal information. As such, the sensitivity of the information at issue leads us to the conclusion that Bell must obtain express consent for the RAP in the circumstances. This conclusion is further supported by our assessment of the reasonable expectations of Bell Customers, which is set out below.
Conservative MP Ablonzcy on Bill C-51: Who Needs the Rule of Law?
Over the past two days, I’ve posted on the extremely disappointing review of Bill C-51 with Conservative MPs rarely asking substantive questions of critics and the difficulty the government had in finding expert supporters of the bill. The clause-by-clause review of the bill held earlier this week was not much better. Not only did the Conservative MPs reject all opposition amendments, but the discussion remained acrimonious with attacks against both critics of the bill and opposition MPs.
One of the most worst examples involved a proposed amendment from Green Party leader Elizabeth May which incorporated suggestions from the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA, like many witnesses, expressed serious concern about the inclusion of a provision in the bill that appears to grant judges the right to issue warrants that violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Craig Forcese writes about the government’s anomalous effort to justify this provision). The CBA noted in its brief:
From Obama Birthers to Anti-Immigration Activists: Who the Government Turned to for Bill C-51 Support During Committee Hearings
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security completed its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-51 yesterday with a hearing that Green Party leader Elizabeth May described as the “most offensive she has experienced.” In all, the government rejected 61 Green Party amendments, 28 NDP amendments, and 13 Liberal amendments. Yesterday I posted a “by the numbers” review of the committee hearings on Bill C-51 noting that Conservative MPs rarely asked substantive questions about provisions in the bill and that important voices such as the Privacy Commissioner of Canada were blocked from appearing altogether.
One of the most striking aspects of the hearings was how difficult it was for the government to find expert supporters of the bill. There were certainly some – police associations, Robert Morrison, Peter Neumann, Garth Davies, Christian Leuprecht among them – but the line-up of supporting organizations also included:
We Can’t Hear You: The Shameful Review of Bill C-51 By the Numbers
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will hold its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism bill, this morning. The government is expected to introduce several modest amendments that experts note do little to address some of the core concerns with the bill. While there is some tinkering with the information sharing provisions, the law will still allow for widespread sharing without effective oversight from the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Moreover, key concerns with respect to the CSIS Act (warrants that can violate Charter rights) and broader oversight and accountability remains untouched.
None of this comes as a surprise. Earlier in the committee hearings, Green Party leader Elizabeth May lamented that “the hearing process is a sham. They’re not listening to witnesses.” Now that the hearings have concluded, the data bears this out. Witnesses from across the political spectrum called for changes to the information sharing rules, to oversight, to the CSIS powers, and to the advocating or promoting terrorism provision, yet Conservative MPs never bothered to listen.
Few legislative issues are as important as the security and privacy of Canadians, but the entire hearings were structured to avoid hearing from experts, to asking irrelevant questions, or to bringing in witnesses with scant knowledge of the proposed bill. Just how bad was it? The Bill C-51 hearings by the numbers:
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban 
Court Ordered Social Media Site Blocking Coming to Canada?: Trojan Horse Online Harms Bill Clears Senate Committee Review 
An Illusion of Consensus: What the Government Isn’t Saying About the Results of its AI Consultation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act’s Private Right of Access 
Government Says There Are No Plans for National Digital ID To Access Services
