Canadian Government Investigates Accidental Deletion of Privacy Clause

The Canadian government has acknowledged an inadvertent error involving the removal of a key privacy provision from its recently enacted Online Streaming Act. This oversight was highlighted by Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who noted in a blog post that the privacy clause was eliminated through an amendment in another bill, just two months after the Online Streaming Act became law.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Canadian Heritage confirmed awareness of the issue and stated, “We have recently been made aware of what appears to be an inadvertent oversight in a coordinating amendment and are looking into it.” Geist interpreted this as an admission of mistake by the government and stressed the critical nature of the issue. “Given the importance of privacy, it is the type of mistake that just can’t happen and which needs to be fixed as soon as possible,” he remarked in an email.

The Online Streaming Act, which modernized Canada’s Broadcasting Act to include online platforms like Netflix, initially included a privacy amendment introduced by Senator Julie Miville-Déchéne. This amendment was based on recommendations from the federal privacy commissioner and was intended to ensure that the Act would uphold individuals’ privacy rights. Miville-Déchéne expressed her disappointment regarding the oversight, stating, “I’m a bit surprised because I thought there were many levels of verification… But, you know, mistakes happen. I think now the question is that it has to be corrected quickly.”

This issue arose following the passage of an official languages bill in June 2023, which amended the Online Streaming Act. Instead of merely adjusting provisions related to official language minority communities, the amendment inadvertently replaced the privacy provision. As a result, the streaming legislation now contains two similar clauses concerning linguistic communities, but lacks a privacy clause altogether.

The spokesperson for the Heritage Department reassured that existing public and private-sector privacy laws remain applicable to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and broadcasters. “Those regimes apply regardless of the interpretive provisions in the Broadcasting Act,” they stated. Nonetheless, Miville-Déchéne countered this argument, suggesting that the privacy commissioner’s testimony indicated a need for specific reinforcement of privacy rights within the legislation.

Geist added that while privacy laws still govern the CRTC and broadcasters, the removed clause was essential for ensuring that the Broadcasting Act was interpreted in alignment with Canadian privacy law. “That is not the same thing,” he said, underscoring the distinct impact of the deleted provision.

Monica Auer, executive director of the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, raised concerns about the legal ramifications of having two conflicting provisions in the legislation. She explained, “The courts are bound to interpret what Parliament writes, and they have to presume that Parliament knows what it’s doing.” This situation presents a complex challenge for judicial interpretation, as courts will need to navigate the ambiguity created by the absence of a clear privacy clause.

As the government reviews this matter, the urgency to rectify the mistake grows. The implications of this oversight extend beyond legislative details, touching on the broader issue of privacy rights in the digital age. With the public increasingly concerned about data protection, the government’s next steps will be closely scrutinized.

This report was first published on August 29, 2025, by The Canadian Press, highlighting the critical intersection of technology, law, and privacy in Canada’s evolving digital landscape.