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 I believe that something are outdated privacy laws that are no longer fit for purpose.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.
Post Tagged with: "privacy"
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 119: Canada’s Zombie Policy Proposal – Christopher Parsons on the Never-Ending Debate Over Lawful Access
The political and policy battles over lawful access have been going on for decades, cutting across multiple governments both Liberal and Conservative. The so-called zombie policy proposal resurfaced again last summer as then Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault included elements of lawful access within his online harms consultation. The government plans to revisit its plans for online harms, but the lawful access issue is sure to return.
Dr. Christopher Parsons is a Senior Research Associate at the Munk School’s Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, where his research focuses on third-party access to telecommunications data, data privacy, data security, and national security. He previously appeared on the podcast to discuss the questions about the use of Huawei equipment in Canada’s telecom networks and returns to talk about the history of the lawful access debate, the implications of warrantless access to subscriber data, and the recent revival of the lawful access issue.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 117: Fight for the Future’s Sarah Roth-Gaudette on Web 3 Regulation and Alternatives to Big Tech
The interest in regulation and Web 3.0, the umbrella term for all matters crypto, continues to grow in countries around the world. In Canada, a new private member’s bill encourages the government to establish a regulatory framework to support innovation even as concerns mount over the use of cryptocurrency to by-pass conventional payments regulations. In the United States, there have been multiple Congressional hearings and proposals for legislative action.
Fight for the Future was one of many leading digital civil liberties groups that included Access now, Article 19, EFF, and Global Voices, that recently came together to issue a public letter in support of alternatives to big tech and to approach legislation related to Web 3 technologies carefully. Sarah Roth-Gaudette, the Executive Director of Fight for the Future, joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about Web 3, the regulatory initiatives, and the issues that are at stake.
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.
Time to Hit the Reset Button: Canadian Heritage Releases “What We Heard” Report on Online Harms Consultation
Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez released a “What We Heard Report” on the government’s consultation on online harms earlier today. To the government’s credit, the report is remarkably candid as it does not shy away from the near-universal criticism that its plans sparked, including concerns related to freedom of expression, privacy rights, the impact of the proposal on certain marginalized groups, and compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The report provides a play-by-play of these concerns, leaving little doubt that a major reset is required. The government telegraphed a change in approach with the Rodriguez mandate letter, which explicitly stated that the online harms legislation “should be reflective of the feedback received during the recent consultations.”
Recent Posts
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 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 228: Kumanan Wilson on Why Canadian Health Data Requires Stronger Privacy Protection in the Trump Era
