Four months ago this weekend, the government introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, with the headline promise to establish a social media ban for those under 16. The bill has attracted enormous attention from supporters and critics alike, yet the government still has not released the Charter statement that is supposed to accompany it. The Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to issue a Charter statement for every government bill that sets out its potential effects on Charter rights, with the express purpose of informing both Parliament and the public. Charter statements have been released for bills tabled after Bill C-34, including Bill C-36, the privacy reform bill that works in partnership with Bill C-34. Yet nothing has happened in four months on Bill C-34 and the social media ban.
Latest Posts
Three Years After October 7th: Living With the Shockwaves
In the immediate aftermath of the Hamas terror attacks on October 7th, Jewish communities around the world shared the shock of Israelis at the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. A year later, I wrote about learning of the attack in real time, hours after a Shabbat dinner, as the Israeli red alert app on my Apple Watch buzzed continuously. The barrage of alerts was so intense that I initially thought the app had malfunctioned. The pain of that day and the days that followed was shared by many who, despite being thousands of kilometres away, felt as if they too had been targeted and were left with a desperate sadness.
Over the past three years, the initial shock has turned into a relentless series of shockwaves, as if October 7th was an earthquake with reverberations that never end. For many Israelis and diaspora Jews, these three years have been dominated by denial, repeated antisemitic violence, and a deep sense of betrayal.
What If the U.S. Demanded This? The Cloud Provider Conditions Behind Canada’s EU Digital Pivot
Given concerns about what the U.S. envisioned for “digital trade alignment,” consider the possibility that the package required Canada to keep its cloud market open to U.S. companies, gave them equivalent access to government procurement, and restricted the implementation of a “Buy Canadian” approach to sovereign cloud. The U.S. would also set the standard for Canadian privacy law, Canadian law enforcement and security agencies would not wield powers over cloud providers that conflict with U.S. rules on government access to data, and the U.S. could suspend or revoke the deal if it concluded that Canada no longer met its standards. In return, the deal would allow Canadian companies to compete for sensitive U.S. government cloud contracts on the condition that the data centres, the data and the staff were U.S. based, staff were U.S. citizens, and the Canadian government was restricted from accessing the data in the U.S.
Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism
Earlier this month, Jewish students at Wilfrid Laurier University returned to their residence after Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, to find that the mezuzahs affixed to their doors had been torn off and smashed. In the immediate aftermath, the campus Chabad rabbi joined the university’s dean of students to replace them, with Jewish and non-Jewish students gathering in support to send a unified response to the blatant antisemitism. My The Hub op-ed notes that the incident was yet another reminder of the escalation of harassment, discrimination, and vandalism targeting Jewish students and faculty on Canadian campuses. While repeated surveys and studies have left little doubt about the scale of the problem, not all universities have responded as decisively as Laurier. Indeed, too many have either ignored the issue or been reluctant to address it head-on.
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered
Bill C-22, the government’s lawful access legislation, is awaiting Senate consideration this fall with the encryption provisions likely to be the centre of attention given diametrically opposing views from law enforcement and technology companies and experts. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree told the Toronto Star earlier this month that the bill strikes “the right balance” on encryption, claiming that cracking encryption is “off limits” except in “extenuating circumstances” where there is a “minor opening,” and that “everybody has had to have some water in their wine.” The government’s approach follows the typical legislative playbook of seeking a middle ground that stakeholders can (sometimes reluctantly) live with. Yet the past few weeks have produced an unusual situation in which both sides say no viable middle ground exists. Police claim the bill’s encryption provisions do little to change what they can obtain under existing law. Nearly two dozen technology companies and industry groups argue the same provisions leave every user at risk since even partial weakening of encryption undermines its effectiveness.
Recent Posts
The Missing Charter Statement: Why Hasn’t the Government Explained How Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Complies with the Charter? - Three Years After October 7th: Living With the Shockwaves
What If the U.S. Demanded This? The Cloud Provider Conditions Behind Canada’s EU Digital Pivot 
Ontario is Done Waiting for Universities to Act on Campus Antisemitism 
Is Compromise on Encryption Possible? Why Bill C-22’s “Minor Opening” Leaves the Central Question Unanswered
