Wiertz Sebastien - Privacy by Sebastien Wiertz (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/ahk6nh
Privacy
Taking Stock of Bill C-34: Five Things to Know About the Government’s Plan for a Kids’ Social Media Ban, Mandated Age Verification, and AI Chatbot Rules
This past week in digital policy was dominated by Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, which includes platform regulation, an under-16 social media ban backed by mandated age verification, a new AI chatbot regulatory regime, and the creation of a powerful Digital Safety Commission. I have posted daily on the bill, including my initial review, an examination of the 50 key decisions the bill leaves for later, and a closer look at the government’s fast-track implementation plan, alongside a FAQ and posts on mandated ID and trade risks that I published just before the bill was tabled. For those coming to the issue fresh, this post draws on the week’s posts by taking stock of where things stand.
Liberal MP: Lawful Access “Has Nothing to Do With the Privacy of People and Their Information”
The government is set to introduce privacy reform next week with the “fundamental right to privacy” expected to serve as a foundational element of the forthcoming bill. Yet as the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security continues its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22, Liberal MP Sima Acan last night offered a stunning perspective suggesting that the government simply does not conceive of privacy as most Canadians do. Frustrated with the dogged efforts of Conservative MP Jacob Mantle to address the privacy implications of the bill, Acan stated that the bill “has nothing to do with the privacy of people and their information.” After multiple hearings on the privacy consequences of mandatory metadata retention, backdoor access and weakened encryption, and reduced evidentiary standards for access to subscriber information, the comment is ill-informed and simply shocking. If that position reflects the broader view within the government, it is little wonder that the privacy risks of lawful access have not been taken seriously.
Everything All At Once: Bill C-34 Combines Platform Duties, a Kids’ Social Media Ban, AI Chatbot Regulation, and a Powerful Digital Safety Commission Into a Risky “Trust Us” Bet
The government tabled Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, earlier today, marking its third attempt at online harms legislation after the failed 2021 consultation and Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act that died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued ahead of the 2025 election. As I wrote […]
Everything You Wanted to Know About a Kids’ Social Media Ban (But Were Rightly Afraid to Ask): A FAQ on Age Verification and Mandated ID for Everyone
The government is expected to table the Digital Safety Act on Wednesday with reports that it will include a ban on social media for those under 16, framed as a “temporary” measure that platforms can exit once a new digital regulator certifies their safety standards. I have been writing about these issues, from the original Online Harms Act to mandated age verification and website blocking and now the kids’ ban, for several years. This FAQ gathers the analysis in one place, with links throughout to the longer pieces for anyone who wants to go deeper. The key takeaway is that a kids’ social media ban is an ineffective and harmful policy that raises privacy concerns for tens of millions of Canadians through mandated age verification requirements. The policy fails to address the underlying concerns with social media and the prospect of a “temporary” ban makes little sense since the requirement might be reversible, but the data collection and regulatory infrastructure are permanent.
Bill C-22’s Clause-by-Clause Problem: The Government Includes Agencies Seeking Lawful Access Powers But Blocks the Privacy Commissioner’s Return
The House of Commons public safety committee started its clause-by-clause review of Bill C-22 last week, the stage at which the lawful access bill’s actual statutory language is settled and the privacy safeguards are either written in or left out. The witnesses the committee included said a lot about the government’s commitment to addressing privacy concerns and to ensuring a balanced bill. Clause-by-clause reviews typically include departmental officials as witnesses, who provide support to the committee by answering technical questions. Years ago, officials were viewed as non-partisan, but today officials invariably defend the government’s position and subtly (or not so subtly) argue against amendments. Including non-departmental witnesses is very rare since they have already had the chance to make their case to the committee. Yet the RCMP and CSIS, the agencies that have lobbied for these powers and will wield them, were on hand last week to guide members through the Bill C-22 amendments. Those witnesses will be unlikely to support potential privacy-focused amendments. Even more astonishing, efforts to include Philippe Dufresne, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, whose recommendations several of the amendments under consideration are drawn from, were rejected by Liberal MPs on the committee.
Recent Posts
Taking Stock of Bill C-34: Five Things to Know About the Government’s Plan for a Kids’ Social Media Ban, Mandated Age Verification, and AI Chatbot Rules 
The Exemption Illusion: Why the Government’s Plan to Fast Track Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Means No Standards, No Privacy Review, and No Enforcement 
Unpacking Bill C-34: My Appearance on the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel Podcast 
Liberal MP: Lawful Access “Has Nothing to Do With the Privacy of People and Their Information” 
The Law to Be Named Later: Bill C-34 Punts 50 Key Decisions to Cabinet and a Digital Safety Commission That Does Not Yet Exist
