Canada’s Bill C-34: Big on Optics, Thin on AI Governance
TORONTO, ON –
Canada has introduced a new digital safety bill that brings AI chatbots into the regulatory spotlight. But even if Bill C-34 becomes law, it still won’t answer the biggest AI governance question facing Canadian businesses, creators, and the broader market: What are the actual rules for private-sector AI development, deployment, and commercialization?
When viewed alongside Canada’s new AI Strategy, the fractional regulatory framework combined with aggressive AI adoption targets raises key governance that are difficult to reconcile.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and AI Minister Evan Solomon promised new privacy and online‑safety laws to protect Canadians, but the lacklustre messaging doesn’t exactly instil confidence: trust the plan, embrace AI, and the benefits will follow.
AI for all, regulation for some
Canada’s new AI strategy aims to lift business AI use from just over 12 percent to 60 percent by 2034, support up to 250,000 AI-related jobs over five years, and position AI as a major driver of productivity and competitiveness. In Ottawa’s own framing, AI for All is about closing Canada’s “AI adoption gap.” But is prioritizing roll‑out over guardrails the right move?
Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, is being presented as a response to online harms and AI risk, focusing primarily on child safety, social media obligations, and chatbot behaviour inside a digital safety framework.
The core problem is that the federal government is actively promoting AI deployment and promising economic upside without having first resolved Canada’s biggest legislative gap: comprehensive private-sector and corporate AI regulation.
What Bill C-34 proposes on AI
Bill C-34 is focused on making social media and other online services safer for children. It introduces measures aimed at social media transparency, accountability, and child protection, including age restrictions, age-verification or age-estimation systems unless a platform qualifies for an exemption.
Targeting AI chatbot obligations, Bill C-34 requires operators to reduce the risk of their services communicating or generating harmful content by implementing crisis-intervention protocols for situations involving suicidal ideation, self-harm, or threats of serious violence—including immediate interruption of the interaction and direction to human-run resources. Proposed measures are also intended to stop AI systems from posing as humans, masquerading as licensed professionals, encouraging self-harm, or distributing certain forms of unlawful content.
The broader compliance and enforcement structure will operate through a newly created Digital Safety Commission of Canada. But criticism has emerged over the bill’s dependence on future regulation and ministerial discretion, meaning fundamental questions about scope, thresholds, verification, exemptions, and harmful behaviour remain unsettled.
This was a major concern that contributed to the downfall of Bill C-27 and Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA): an incomplete regulatory structure, over-delegated administrative decision-making powers, a plea to Canadians to trust the government, and a promise that the details would come later.
The government is regulating around AI, not regulating AI
Bill C-34 follows Ottawa’s traditional approach to AI governance: regulate the visible outputs that create political urgency, while leaving the wider commercial and operational ecosystem largely untouched. The government has opted for a narrower safety model built around platforms, children, and select categories of digital harm.
Those issues are serious and no responsible business should dismiss the importance of online and digital child safety, exploitative content rules, or the need for guardrails around chatbot interactions. But this is only one aspect of a much larger problem.
AI risk is not limited to social platforms or chatbot conversations, and a chatbot safety rule is not the same as corporate AI regulation. In fact, the majority of compliance issues facing AI companies don’t begin with user-chatbot interactions. They start much earlier.
Canada’s AI and data regulation should provide a coherent framework to address key concerns with how companies design, train, test, license, audit, and deploy AI systems:
What data was used to train the model?
Was consent was obtained?
Did outputs reproduce protected works or personalities?
Do vendors shift liability downstream?
Do enterprise users understand automated risks?
Can businesses can explain, govern, and contract around the tools they deploy?
Vendors systematically shift risks downstream, often disclaiming responsibility for accuracy, hallucinations, and third-party IP infringement, leaving deploying organizations to bear the operational and regulatory consequences. Rather than proactively regulating against known AI risks to prevent avoidable harm, Ottawa is reinforcing the vendor model by forcing downstream actors to absorb the compliance burden and manage the fallout after the risk has entered the market. That is reactive action, not preventative policy.
A serious AI regime should start at the source—by setting hard limits on what systems can generate, and holding developers and deployers accountable when they release tools with obvious, unmitigated misuse pathways. Instead, the government has opted for an after‑the‑fact enforcement model that targets end-users.
This approach may be politically expedient, but it fails to provide a regulatory regime that constrains unsafe practices earlier in the AI supply chain—at the level of model developers, commercial deployers, infrastructure providers, and the companies that design and profit from AI systems.
The private-sector gap is a real policy failure, with real implications
A business can comply with Bill C-34’s platform-facing obligations and still have no meaningful federal guidance on core questions such as training-data governance, internal AI procurement standards, enterprise deployment risk assessments, downstream liability allocation, audit expectations, record-keeping, or baseline duties when using AI in commercial decision-making. In that sense, Bill C-34 gives the appearance of AI regulation, but leaves the market’s most important private-sector questions unresolved.
The bill should tell companies which services are covered, what thresholds apply, how compliance will be measured, what verification tools are acceptable, and how chatbot obligations will expand over time. Instead, businesses are being told, in effect, to innovate first and reverse-engineer compliance later.
The failed Bill C-27 and AIDA had serious flaws and deserved much of the criticism it received, but at least it attempted to regulate private-sector AI systems as a category of business activity.
The cost of compliance
Legislation that doesn’t provide market clarity creates uncertainty and inevitably increases costs. Product teams hesitate. Compliance teams over-correct. Contract negotiations become slower and more defensive. Startups face barriers that incumbents are better positioned to absorb. And everyone is left to speculate over when and how aggressively regulators will use their discretionary powers when the law finally catches up.
Without a comprehensive, centralized regime, organizations are forced to piece together obligations across several areas of law, contract drafting, sector-specific regulation, and whatever foreign policy may apply with cross-border use and customers.
This fragmented framework does not eliminate liability; it redistributes it. In the absence of clear AI statutes, risk is misallocated across standardized AI vendor contracts, indemnity disputes, insurance questions, regulatory investigations, and litigation over whether older legal doctrines are flexible enough to handle new or synthetic media and automated decision-making.
Why this matters for AI companies, platform operators, online businesses, and digital brands
AI has been integrated in all corporate sectors in one form or another. Enterprise vendors are selling AI tools into workplaces, agencies, studios, and startups long before lawmakers have established a national standard for accountability. Businesses are onboarding tools without fully understanding what data they ingest, what rights they claim, or what outputs they generate.
Companies are blindly integrating AI systems into hiring, advertising, customer service, fraud detection, content moderation, analytics, pricing, media production, compliance, and communications. Brands are using AI to generate campaign assets. Talent faces voice-cloning and likeness misuse, which is a legitimate risk for anyone whose name, face, or voice drives commercial value. AI risk shows up in synthetic endorsements, voice cloning, platform moderation errors, training-data disputes, automated content generation, and broad contractual permissions that unknowingly authorize uses far beyond what a creator intended.
Bill C-34 does very little to address these day-to-day commercial realities, and fails to establish necessary corporate obligations that would help Canadian businesses understand the baseline rules for using AI responsibly in contracts, operations, product design, and market-facing communications. The government is approaching AI solely through an online safety lens while apparently ignoring the fact that it’s also a procurement, privacy, intellectual property, employment, marketing, and competition issue.
The takeaway
Bill C-34 may become an important online safety statute, but it should not be mistaken for the comprehensive federal AI framework Canada needs. Its focus on social media, child safety, and chatbot conduct promise key protections for younger populations, but it neglects to provide a meaningful solution to the widening AI governance gap in the private sphere. A stronger Canadian AI strategy would not force Parliament to choose between child safety and corporate accountability. It would do both.
Until Ottawa addresses AI as a full-market commercial risk rather than an isolated safety problem, Canada’s legislative response will continue to feel narrow, reactive, and structurally incomplete. For Canadian businesses, creators, and brands, this means the burden of AI regulation and compliance will remain a matter of internal governance, contract strategy, privacy compliance, IP protection, and proactive risk allocation.
Need help understanding the intricate contracts that govern your creative work, or want to build a strategy for IP protection? Diverge Legal is here to help.
If you’re ready for representation that understands the difference between a data point and your dream, contact Diverge today.
Read these next
More about DIVERGE
Diverge is not just a legal service provider. We’re your partner in building a legally sound and sustainable content creation business. We understand the unique challenges creators face and offer tailored solutions to protect your intellectual property, ensure regulatory compliance, and minimize legal risks.
Whether you’re an established influencer or an emerging creator, Diverge is here to help you focus on what you do best, while we take care of the legal complexities.
Reach out to Diverge today to learn more about how we can support your content creation journey.
Follow @diverge.legal on social media or subscribe to our newsletter below for more tips on protecting your creative rights and thriving in the creator economy.
Important Notice: The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Reading this content does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your specific situation. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the express written permission of Diverge Legal.
