Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
Canada’s First Digital Trade Agreement: Why the Canada-EU Deal Will Likely Follow Europe’s Template and What That Means for Canadian Digital Law
Last week’s Canada-EU summit in Montreal delivered several new collaborative initiatives as part of Canada’s pivot toward the EU, but among the most notable from a digital policy perspective was the conclusion of negotiations on a Canada-EU Digital Trade Agreement. E-commerce or digital trade chapters are by now common in Canadian trade agreements (including in CUSMA and the CPTPP), but this is Canada’s first standalone digital trade agreement. The possibility of a DTA has long been of interest, as Canada formally requested to join the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement in May 2022, and Global Affairs Canada launched a consultation that same year on developing a model Canadian digital trade agreement. That consultation process did not produce a public model, which means the Canada-EU DTA may emerge as the standard even though it is based on the European approach. While the text is unlikely to be released for months (officials said it is going through a “legal scrub”), there is plenty of room to speculate about what it contains since this will be the third EU DTA and it is likely to follow a similar approach.
The Age Verification Bill That Won’t Die: How Bill S-209 Complicates the Government’s Bill C-34 Online Safety Plan
Bill C-34, the government’s Safe Social Media Act, was touted as its approach to online age verification, adding a mandated age check for social media account creation for those under-16 and age verification for under-18s for access to pornographic content, all overseen by a new Digital Safety Commission. But it now appears the government is prepared to let Bill S-209, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne’s age verification and website-blocking bill, proceed alongside it, creating new complications with inconsistent definitions and expanded regulatory powers. Bill S-209, which I have warned about since its predecessor Bill S-210 and opposed before a Senate committee last fall, passed the Senate in April and received its first hour of second reading debate in the House of Commons last month. The Liberals previously opposed Bill S-210, citing privacy and freedom of expression concerns, but this time the government supported sending the bill to committee and the House has now referred it on division to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The shift surprised even the bill’s sponsor, and it opens the door to a two-pronged regulatory model that doubles down on age verification, features inconsistent definitions of pornography, establishes a second penalty regime, and could give the future Digital Safety Commission the power to seek website-blocking orders.
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms
Parliament is back in full swing and with it debate on a wide range of digital bills, including lawful access, social media rules, AI regulation, and privacy reform. This week’s Law Bytes podcast provides an update on recent developments and highlights what to watch for in the weeks ahead as […]
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage conducted an extensive study on the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents over the past year and released its report in June. The committee, which will soon lead the review of Bill C-34, produced 13 recommendations including a legally enforceable duty of care, an independent regulator with monetary penalties, safety-by-design requirements, defined categories of harm, and the inclusion of AI chatbots and deepfakes. Given the overlap with the government’s social media bill, it is no surprise that the government endorsed many of the recommendations this week. There is an outlier, however: the committee considered two potential bans, one on targeted ads for kids and the other on underage access to social media. The committee recommended the ad ban and stopped short of the social media one, but the government reversed the approach, declining the ad ban while legislating the social media ban for under-16s.
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban
More than four months after Bill C-34 was introduced (and about ten days after I posted about it), the government released its Charter statement for the Safe Social Media Act. While there was no doubt the government would insist its bill is Charter-compliant, the question was how it would defend the under-16 social media ban, which I have argued is unconstitutional and whose French counterpart the Constitutional Council struck down in August. On that front, the statement is noticeably weak, citing no evidence, case law, or foreign comparisons. In fact, by identifying less restrictive alternatives to the ban, it effectively concedes that less intrusive safeguards can adequately address the risks the ban is meant to target. In other words, this Charter statement makes the case against the government’s own bill.
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules 
From Making Web Giants Pay to Paying Media Giants: Budget 2026 Replaces the Government’s Internet Platform Strategy With $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars for Culture and News 
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin 
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services 
Canada’s First Digital Trade Agreement: Why the Canada-EU Deal Will Likely Follow Europe’s Template and What That Means for Canadian Digital Law
