Second reading debate on Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, began yesterday in the House of Commons, with the government pressing opposition MPs on whether they support creating the Digital Safety Commission, its proposed Internet regulator. While there was some broad acknowledgement that someone needs to administer the regulatory plan, it was striking to see the government focus on the regulator rather than the regulation. Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux asked Conservative critic Rachael Thomas whether “in principle, the Conservative Party recognizes the value of having such a commission” and later asked Bloc critic Martin Champoux whether his party sees “the principle of having that commission as a positive thing.” When Culture Minister Marc Miller was asked what standards a platform would need to meet for an exemption to the under-16 social media ban, he responded that the way to protect kids is “to make sure we have a regulator in place that can put together precisely these guidelines.” That is a bug, not a feature of a bill that, as I wrote when the bill was tabled, punts roughly 50 key decisions to cabinet and a commission that does not yet exist. The initial debate confirms that the government plans to build the regulator first and work out the details later.
News
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban
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.
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism
Last month’s Public Safety progress report on the National Commitments to Combat Antisemitism notably included statements recognizing that antisemitism includes anti-Zionism. The National Council of Canadian Muslims wrote to the department to object and is now circulating a reply from Minister Gary Anandasangaree that former Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia Amira Elghawaby touted as showing that the “Government of Canada Clarifies Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism.” The reality, however, is that the response did no such thing: it does not retract or amend the report, states twice that the government’s position has not changed, and links anti-Zionism to the denial of Jewish self-determination.
The What, Me Worry? Consultation: Media Quietly Tells Government It Wants Even More Funding With Little Concern for Independence Risks
The government’s ever-increasing financial support for the news media was the subject of a non-public consultation earlier this year, with Canadian Heritage asking funding recipients what they think of the programs, what more needs to be done, and whether they have concerns about the risks to the independence of the press that can come with greater reliance on public funding. If you ask groups whether they want more money, they invariably say yes, so it may not surprise to learn the industry supports expanding the media funding programs and sees little reason to worry about independence concerns. The consultation, which focused on the Local Journalism Initiative (LJI) and Canada Periodical Fund (CPF), was not posted on the department’s public consultations page. Instead, the department circulated it to departmental contacts and stakeholders that “included current CPF clients and LJI delivery organizations,” and encouraged them to share it within their networks. Because I was included on that list and provided my thoughts, I received the summary of the results this week, which I have posted here, since the government has yet to make it publicly available.
Years of Uncertainty: Bill C-22’s Missing Regulations and Secret Ministerial Orders
Bill C-22, the lawful access bill, was a focal point of debate in the Senate last week. While companies continue to warn they may exit Canada if the bill passes in its current form, the debate’s biggest revelation was that it may take years for the government to pass the regulations needed to fully implement the law. The delay is notable for several reasons, including the government’s insistence in the spring that passing the bill was urgent (to the point that it shut down committee clause-by-clause review) and the regulatory uncertainty that it creates. Indeed, the Senate is effectively being asked to approve a surveillance and data retention framework without knowing who will be covered, what they will be required to build, what data about Canadians will be retained, or what any of it will cost. If this sounds familiar, it is because it has seemingly become the government’s go-to approach on many of its digital bills, from privacy to social media regulation, where key decisions are left to regulations and regulatory processes that take years to complete.
Recent Posts
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do 
Making the Case Against Its Own Bill: What the Government’s Bill C-34 Charter Statement Reveals About the Constitutional Vulnerability of the Social Media Ban 
“Position Has Not Changed”: The Canadian Government Reaffirms That Antisemitism Includes Anti-Zionism 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 279: My Keynote on Digital Sovereignty: Control, Choice, and Connection 
The What, Me Worry? Consultation: Media Quietly Tells Government It Wants Even More Funding With Little Concern for Independence Risks
