Privacy: 1) Government says it accidentally deleted privacy provision in online streaming bill; 2)Google refusing to comply with “right to be forgotten” delisting decision;

1) Government says it accidentally deleted privacy provision in online streaming bill

Courtesy Barrie360.com and Canadian Press

By Anja Karadeglija, Aug. 29, 2025.

The federal government says it’s “looking into” what appears to be the accidental removal of a privacy provision in its Online Streaming Act.

Earlier this week, University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist outlined in a blog post that a privacy provision in the legislation was removed only two months after the bill became law, through an amendment contained in another bill.

The heritage department said it is now aware of the issue.

“We have recently been made aware of what appears to be an inadvertent oversight in a coordinating amendment and are looking into it,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

Geist said that statement “appears to confirm that this was a mistake on the government’s part.”

“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 said in an email.

The Online Streaming Act updated Canada’s Broadcasting Act to capture online streamers like Netflix.

While it was making its way through the legislative process, Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne introduced an amendment, based on the recommendation of the federal privacy commissioner, which then became part of the legislation.

It stated the Online Streaming Act would be construed and applied in a manner consistent with individuals’ right to privacy.

Miville-Dechêne said she was upset by the mistake.

“And 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.”

Two months after the Online Streaming Act became law in April 2023, the government passed an official languages bill.

A section of that bill amended the streaming legislation to change language in a provision dealing with official language minority communities.

But instead of replacing a similar provision, the official languages bill replaced the privacy provision instead. That means the streaming bill now has two similarly-worded provisions around linguistic communities, and none dealing with privacy.

The Heritage spokesperson said public and private-sector privacy laws still apply to the CRTC and broadcasters. “Those regimes apply regardless of the interpretive provisions in the Broadcasting Act,” the spokesperson said.

But Miville-Dechêne pushed back against that argument.

“If the privacy commissioner said in his testimony that the privacy question should be reinforced, it’s because he was not convinced that the general privacy law would be enough,” she said.

Geist said that although privacy laws still apply to the CRTC and broadcasters, “the point of the now deleted clause was to ensure that the Broadcasting Act was interpreted in a manner consistent with Canadian privacy law. That is not the same thing.”

Monica Auer, executive director of the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, said that leaves the courts with two different provisions to interpret, and no ability to strike one of them out.

“The courts are bound to interpret what Parliament writes, and they have to presume that Parliament knows what it’s doing,” she said.

2) Google refusing to comply with “right to be forgotten” delisting decision

Courtesy Barrie360.com, Canadian Press

By Anja Karadeglija, August 27, 2025

The federal privacy commissioner says individuals have the right to have some information delisted from search engine results, but Google is refusing to comply.

In his decision in a long-running case that has been central to establishing the application of a “right to be forgotten” in Canada, privacy commissioner Philippe Dufresne recommended Google de-list articles about a criminal charge that was dropped.

In a press release, the commissioner’s office said Google won’t implement the recommendation to de-list specific articles in the search results for the individual’s name. The release said the office “is considering all available options to secure Google’s compliance with the Act.”

The case first began in 2017, with Google challenging the application of federal privacy law to its search engine. The privacy commissioner asked the courts to weigh in and in 2023 the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Google’s appeal. The decision marked a victory for people seeking a digital “right to be forgotten” in Canada.

The release Wednesday said the commissioner found that individuals have the right, in “limited circumstances,” to have some information delisted, so that it doesn’t show up in online searches for their name.

The right “applies in situations where there is a risk of serious harm to an individual, including, as he has found in this case, a risk of harm to a person’s safety or dignity if certain elements of their personal information continue to be displayed through an online search for their name,” it said.

The right applies if “this risk of harm outweighs the public interest in that information remaining accessible through such a search.”

The case in question involved articles about a criminal charge that was dropped, which the individual said caused direct harm, including social stigma, lost job opportunities and physical assault.

The commissioner recommended Google de-list the article for searches of that individual’s name, though they would continue to be available online and appear in results for other search terms.

According to Google, the court cases didn’t consider questions around impact on freedom of expression.

A Google spokesperson said the company is reviewing the report but remains “strongly of the view that consideration of a so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ must be appropriately balanced with the freedom of expression and access to information rights of Canadians, the news media, and other publishers, and therefore should be determined and defined by the courts.”