The House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics spent much of February conducting a study on the collection and use of mobility data by the Government of Canada. The study stems from reports that the Public Health Agency of Canada worked with Telus and BlueDot, an AI firm, to identify COVID-19 trends based on mobility data. I appeared before the committee earlier this week, making the case that this is a a genuine privacy quandary where the activities were arguably legal, the notice met the low legal standard, Telus is widely viewed as seeking to go beyond the strict statutory requirements, and the project itself had the potential for public health benefits. Yet despite these factors, something does not sit right with many Canadians. I believe that something are outdated privacy laws that are no longer fit for purpose. My opening statement is posted below.
Blog
Bill C-11’s Foundational Faults, Part Two: The Regulate-It-All Approach of Treating All Audio-Visual Content as a “Program”
My first post in a series on foundational faults in Bill C-11 focused on the virtually limitless reach of the CRTC’s jurisdictional power over audio-visual services. The starting point in the bill is that all audio-visual services anywhere in the world with some Canadian users or subscribers are subject to the Canadian jurisdiction and it will fall to the Commission to establish thresholds exempting some services from regulation. However, even with some exemptions, the Canadian approach will require registration and data disclosures, likely leading many services to block Canada altogether, reducing choice and increasing consumer cost.
The expansive approach in Bill C-11 isn’t limited to its jurisdictional reach, however. Not only does the law have few limits with respect to which services are regulated, it is similarly over-broad with respect to what is regulated, featuring definitions that loop all audio-visual content into the law by treating all audio-visual content as a “program” subject to potential regulation.
Lobby Harder: Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez Issues Industry Call to Action to Support Bill C-11
Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez appeared at the CMPA’s Prime Time conference last week, calling on the film, TV and broadcast sectors to become even more vocal in defending his Bill C-11. The bill, which has been the top lobbying priority of the sector for years, opens the door to regulating user generated content and asserts jurisdiction over all audio-visual services worldwide. There are several elements worth noting in the question-and-answer session with Rodriguez, not the least of which is the insistence on inaccurately claiming the new bill addresses concerns with regulating user generated content. When asked about the issue, Rodriguez responded:
Age Verification Requirements for Twitter or Website Blocking for Reddit?: My Appearance on Bill S-210 at the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Bill C-11, the government’s online streaming bill, is rightly garnering increasing attention, but there is a private member’s Senate bill that should also be on the radar screen. Bill S-210, a follow-up to S-203, is a bill that purports to restrict underage access to sexually explicit material. Sponsored by Senator Miville-Dechêne, a former CBC journalist appointed to the Senate in 2018, the bill would require age verification requirements for sites (likely backed by face recognition technologies) and mandated website blocking for sites that fail to comply with the verification requirements.
Bill C-11’s Foundational Faults, Part One: The Nearly Unlimited Global Reach of CRTC Jurisdiction Over Internet Audio-Visual Services
My initial post on Bill C-11, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’s follow-up to Bill C-10, focused on the implications for user generated content. That post – along with this week’s Law Bytes podcast – notes that despite assurances that regulating user generated content is off the table, the reality is that the bill leaves the door open to CRTC regulation. Indeed, the so-called Online Streaming Act features an exception that means everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit within the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”. While this issue will rightly garner significant attention, it is not the only fault that lies at the very foundation of the bill.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 232: What Will Canadian Digital Policy Look Like Under the New Liberal Carney Government? 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 229: My Digital Access Day Keynote – Assessing the Canadian Digital Policy Record 
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality
