More than four months after Bill C-34 was introduced (and about ten days after I posted about it), the government released its Charter statement for the Safe Social Media Act. While there was no doubt the government would insist its bill is Charter-compliant, the question was how it would defend the under-16 social media ban, which I have argued is unconstitutional and whose French counterpart the Constitutional Council struck down in August. On that front, the statement is noticeably weak, citing no evidence, case law, or foreign comparisons. In fact, by identifying less restrictive alternatives to the ban, it effectively concedes that less intrusive safeguards can adequately address the risks the ban is meant to target. In other words, this Charter statement makes the case against the government’s own bill.
Recent Posts
Back-of-the-Napkin Cultural Policy: The Government’s $600 Million Streaming Plan Copies the CRTC Decision It Killed at More Than Double the Cost 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 282: Udbhav Tiwari on Why Signal May Exit Canada Over Bill C-22’s Encryption and Metadata Retention Rules 
From Making Web Giants Pay to Paying Media Giants: Budget 2026 Replaces the Government’s Internet Platform Strategy With $1.5 Billion in Taxpayer Dollars for Culture and News 
Has the Government Read Its Own Bill? What Three Days of House Debate Revealed About Bill C-34 Before the Committee Hearings Begin 
Surveillance By Design: Government Officials Say Lawful Access Could Reach Gaming Platforms, Daycares and AI Services
