Who Sets the Digital Rules?
Federal law governs telecommunications. Provincial law governs some privacy. Municipal decisions affect local infrastructure. Platform terms of service govern online behavior. International standards shape technical systems. The rules governing digital life come from multiple sources with overlapping, sometimes conflicting, authority.
Jurisdictional Complexity
Federal Authority
The federal government has jurisdiction over telecommunications and broadcasting under the Constitution. The CRTC regulates these areas. Criminal law powers enable federal action on certain online harms. Privacy law (PIPEDA) applies to private-sector data handling in federal jurisdiction and provinces without substantially similar legislation.
Provincial Authority
Provinces have jurisdiction over property and civil rights, enabling provincial privacy laws, consumer protection, and regulation of provincial institutions. Education, healthcare, and other provincially-delivered services involve provincial digital policy decisions.
Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta have privacy laws deemed substantially similar to PIPEDA, displacing federal law for provincial matters.
Municipal Authority
Municipalities control rights-of-way affecting infrastructure deployment, can operate municipal networks, and make decisions about local technology services. Municipal authority is delegated from provinces, varying by jurisdiction.
Platform Rules
Private platforms set terms of service that govern user behavior on their systems. These private rules may be more significant for daily online experience than public law. Platform decisions about content moderation, account suspension, and algorithmic ranking are made by companies, not governments.
International
International bodies set technical standards (ICANN, ITU, W3C), trade rules affect digital commerce, and foreign law (particularly US and EU) shapes global platform behavior. Canada participates in international processes but cannot unilaterally determine outcomes.
Coordination Challenges
Multiple jurisdictions create coordination challenges:
Gaps: Issues may fall between jurisdictions, with no authority clearly responsible.
Conflicts: Different jurisdictions may impose conflicting requirements.
Forum shopping: Parties may seek favorable jurisdictions rather than appropriate ones.
Enforcement: Jurisdiction over internet-based activities may be unclear. Companies operating from abroad may be difficult to regulate.
Federal-Provincial Dynamics
Digital policy frequently involves federal-provincial coordination—or conflict. Provincial claims to digital jurisdiction have expanded. Federal-provincial disputes over who regulates what create uncertainty.
Cooperative federalism—governments working together—can address coordination challenges but requires political will that may be absent when governments of different parties hold power.
Private Governance
Increasingly, the rules that matter for digital life are set by private companies rather than governments. Platform terms of service, content policies, algorithmic decisions, and API rules shape what is possible online.
This private governance raises accountability questions. Platforms are not democratically accountable. Their rules may not reflect public values. But their rules may be more effectively enforced than government regulations that platforms resist.
Democratic Deficit
The complexity of digital governance creates democratic accountability challenges. Citizens may not know who is responsible for rules affecting them. Participation in rule-making may be difficult when authority is fragmented. Accountability is diluted when multiple actors share responsibility.
The Question
If digital rules come from federal, provincial, municipal, private, and international sources with overlapping and sometimes conflicting authority, then understanding who is responsible for what—and who can be held accountable—becomes genuinely difficult. How should jurisdictional complexity be addressed? What governance structures would provide clearer accountability? And how can citizens participate in rule-making when authority is so fragmented?