The House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage conducted an extensive study on the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents over the past year and released its report in June. The committee, which will soon lead the review of Bill C-34, produced 13 recommendations including a legally enforceable duty of care, an independent regulator with monetary penalties, safety-by-design requirements, defined categories of harm, and the inclusion of AI chatbots and deepfakes. Given the overlap with the government’s social media bill, it is no surprise that the government endorsed many of the recommendations this week. There is an outlier, however: the committee considered two potential bans, one on targeted ads for kids and the other on underage access to social media. The committee recommended the ad ban and stopped short of the social media one, but the government reversed the approach, declining the ad ban while legislating the social media ban for under-16s.
Post Tagged with: "social media ban"
Regulator First, Rules Later: Bill C-34 Debate Shows the Government Wants a Digital Safety Commission Before It Figures Out What It Will Do
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.
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.
The Missing Charter Statement: Why Hasn’t the Government Explained How Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Complies with the Charter?
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.
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain
The proposed settlement between Meta and 51 U.S. state attorneys general, filed last week and still subject to court approval, ranks among the biggest developments in technology litigation in years, featuring both big money and big design changes. The settlement is limited to the participating states, but it is likely to have significant implications for Canadian users and for legislative initiatives such as Bill C-34. Whether Meta extends the measures voluntarily, in response to similar Canadian lawsuits, or as part of a legislated duty to act responsibly in Bill C-34, changes are likely to make their way into Canada. This post highlights key provisions of the settlement and reviews the implications for three Canadian policy concerns: legislation vs. litigation, age verification or age assurance, and privacy.
Recent Posts
The Age Verification Bill That Won’t Die: How Bill S-209 Complicates the Government’s Bill C-34 Online Safety Plan 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 280: A Fall Update on Where Things Stand on Canadian Digital Policy Reforms 
The Wrong Ban: The Heritage Committee Backed a Targeted Ad Ban for Kids and Stopped Short of a Social Media Ban, Yet the Government Chose the Reverse 
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
