This week, the Toronto International Film Festival attempted to cancel, then reinstated, the screening of The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, a documentary on a retired Israeli general’s successful attempt to rescue his family during the October 7, 2023, terror attacks by Hamas.

The organizers of TIFF reportedly claimed they needed

Hamas’s permission to show the footage

of the extreme violence from October 7 found on the GoPros of Hamas terrorists.

How absurd.

The idea that a festival should seek “approval” from the very terrorists who carried out the murders, rapes, and kidnappings is beyond moral bankruptcy — it is collaboration in silencing the truth.

How this decision could have ever been contemplated in the freedom-loving, egalitarian, decent Canada in which I was born, is beyond me.

Canada has also decided to recognize a Palestinian state if certain predicates are met. But 50 of our hostages remain in Hamas’s dungeons of torture — starved, brutalized, some even forced to

dig their own graves

— yet the Government of Canada has chosen this moment, of all moments, to reward the monsters of October 7.

Ghazi Hamad, a senior Hamas terrorist, said it himself: Western recognition of a Palestinian state is

“the fruits” of the slaughter

on October 7. This is not a neutral diplomatic gesture. It is a direct political gift to a terrorist organization that butchered more Jews in a single day than at any time since the Holocaust. Canada is now helping to harvest the “fruits” of mass murder.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has already warned that when French President Macron unilaterally recognized a Palestinian state earlier this year, it killed any realistic chance of securing a ceasefire and freeing the remaining hostages. Canada’s decision will have the same effect. It emboldens Hamas, hardens their demands, and sends the message that terrorism is not just tolerated — it is rewarded.

Let’s be absolutely clear: this decision changes nothing for the people of Gaza, nothing in Israel, and nothing for peace. The only thing it changes is the political fortunes of those in Ottawa who think a grand symbolic gesture will play well with certain domestic audiences.

And here’s the reality Ottawa refuses to see: support for the so-called two-state solution among Israelis has collapsed. A recent Pew Research Center poll, published in the Jerusalem Post, found only

21 per cent of Israelis

now believe peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state is possible — a 14-point drop in less than a year, and the lowest figure since polling began in 2013. Among Jewish Israelis, that number is just 16 per cent. The overwhelming majority of Israelis have concluded that after October 7, such an idea is not merely unrealistic — it is dangerous. Palestinian polling shows only

40 per cent support the concept of a two-state solution

and that Hamas is overwhelmingly the most supported party.

The most popular candidate for president is Marwan Barghouti, who is in an Israeli prison on five counts of murder. Barghouti is not a member of Hamas but Fatah, but he is a terrorist too. Does Canada really want a Palestinian state on Israel’s doorstep led by terrorists like Barghouti?

This is not the Canada the world once knew. On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the partition plan, ending the British Mandate and providing for the establishment of a Jewish state after two millennia in exile. Lester Pearson, then a senior Canadian diplomat and later prime minister, played a vital role in achieving the consensus that led to the plan’s adoption. Pearson maintained that any durable settlement in the region must include recognition of the Jewish people’s right to statehood in their historic homeland — a position he described as a “sine qua non” for peace.

For decades, Canada’s policy reflected that principle, contributing to its reputation as a constructive and balanced actor in the Middle East peace process. The current decision to

unilaterally recognize

a Palestinian state under certain predicates marks a significant departure from that long-standing approach. Prime Minister Mark Carney

said earlier this year

that any future Palestinian state should be “Zionist.” Whichever imaginary Palestinian state Mr. Carney believes he is declaring recognition of, it certainly won’t be “Zionist.” There is time for Mr. Carney to change his mind, and I would urge him to do so.

Canada says its recognition hinges on the Palestinian Authority agreeing to significant reforms: overhauling its governance, holding 2026 elections without Hamas, and creating a demilitarised Palestinian state. It is difficult to see how these predicates could be fully met in practice, given the entrenched power structures and ongoing influence of Hamas. It is impossible that all the predicates will be met by mid-September, so Canada would potentially be rewarding Hamas with state recognition before any of these terms can be met.

History will judge this decision in the context of Canada’s long-standing role in the Middle East. While Canada once acted as a constructive and respected partner in supporting peace and legitimacy in the region, this unilateral recognition risks undermining that legacy. Acting at a moment when our hostages remain in brutal Hamas captivity and tensions are extremely high, Canada sends a terrible signal that political symbolism and opportunism take precedence over practical and sensible diplomatic solutions, and that terrorism works.

I am pleased the Toronto International Film Festival changed their mind, but the antisemitism that is flooding Canada must be taken seriously by both the federal and provincial governments. Canada must do more to counter this terrible change in societal values since October 7.

Sharren Haskel was elected to the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) 10 years ago. She was appointed Deputy Foreign Minister in late 2024. She was born in Toronto and raised in Israel.

• ‘Read a few more history books,’ Canada-born Israeli minister advises millennials uneasy with Iran war
• ‘Canada turned its back on Israel,’ says visiting Israeli legislator

More than 1,000 entertainment leaders have signed an open letter released by the non-profit entertainment industry organization Creative Community For Peace (CCFP) critiquing how the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) handled the film, The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue.

The letter is a response to TIFF’s disinviting the film but then offering to work with the filmmakers, following a public backlash. TIFF later announced it would be an official festival selection

.

“This incident is not an anomaly—it is part of a disturbing pattern that has emerged since October 7th, in which Israeli and Jewish creatives in film, television, music, sports, and literature are confronted with barriers no other community is made to face. The deliberate effort to marginalize and silence Jewish voices in the arts worldwide is intolerable, and it cannot be allowed to persist,” says CCFP executive director Ari Ingel.

Some of the letter signatories include: Amy Schumer, actress; Debra Messing, actress; Mayim Bialik, actress; Sherry Lansing, former CEO of Paramount Pictures; Rebecca De Mornay, actress; Jennifer Jason Leigh, actress; Howie Mandel, TV host; Jerry O’Connell, actor; former chairman of NBCUniversal Television and Streaming; Jonathan Baruch.

To see the full list of signees, visit:

CCFPeace.org/?TIFF

Here is the full text of the letter:

“We, the undersigned members of the entertainment industry, are deeply concerned about the Toronto International Film Festival’s (TIFF) initial decision to disinvite the documentary The Road Between Us: The Ultimate Rescue, and its subsequent communications. This is the only documentary scheduled for this year’s program that puts forward Israel’s narrative.

“This follows the 2024 festival, which likewise didn’t platform a single Israeli documentary that didn’t disparage the country. In contrast, TIFF 2024 featured three anti-Israel documentaries, with four more slated for 2025.

“Last year, Creative Community for Peace and other entertainment industry leaders urged TIFF leadership to provide a platform for Israeli and Israeli-themed projects. TIFF leadership “assured” us they would do so “even in difficult times like this.” That assurance was apparently a lie.

“Not only did TIFF omit The Road Between Us from the initial slate announcement, but TIFF pressured its filmmakers to change the film’s title—only to then cancel its participation. While the film has been reinstated after a significant public backlash, the festival has not offered a sincere apology or explanation for the harm it created for the Jewish community.

“Furthermore, the initial claim that the project couldn’t be screened because the filmmakers didn’t have the rights to footage Hamas – a Canadian designated terrorist group, broadcast to the world on October 7, 2023, when they massacred, raped, brutalized, and kidnapped thousands of innocent people from toddlers

to Holocaust survivors — strains credibility.

“As did the claim that the cancellation was for security reasons—when anti-Israel productions face no such barrier and instead of ensuring a safe environment, TIFF caved to these violent demands that only increased a sense that the Jews of Canada don’t count.

“This incident was clearly a surrender to an antisemitic campaign determined to silence Jewish and Israeli voices, at a time when antisemitism in Canada is surging to historic levels. TIFF’s decisions this past week have only deepened and legitimized that hostility.

“Documentaries and Film Festivals have the power to affect lives and effect positive change in the world.

“They can bridge cultural divides and bring people together through a shared love of the arts.

“We call on the Board of Directors to question the leadership of TIFF, to platform Israeli voices moving forward, and to choose dialogue over exclusion and peace over prejudice.”

The press release that accompanied the letter stated that the people who signed it did so “as individuals on their own behalf and not on behalf of their companies or organizations. All organizations and companies listed are for affiliation purposes only.”

• TIFF reverses course, announces it will now screen controversial October 7 film
• Ian Cooper: I’m an entertainment lawyer. TIFF’s defence of Hamas copyright is bunk

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

The federal government spent more than $170,000 to bring Canadian women and their children back to the country after they went overseas to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, documents show.

As first reported by Global News

, the documents, which were released under access to information legislation, contain details of the costs incurred when eight women, along with their children, were brought home from Syria. They include costs for business class air travel and hotel bills in Montreal that include wine, candy and chocolates. A number of the women have since been charged with terrorism offences.

On Friday, the Conservatives called for an investigation into the expenditures in a letter addressed to Jean-Yves Duclos, the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, Global News reported.

“With Canadians lining up in food banks in record numbers and struggling with housing costs, the Liberal government must answer for why they spent $170,000 on lavish costs to repatriate reported ISIS criminals,” the letter reportedly says.

The Conservative party did not respond by press time to National Post’s request for comment.

The first round of repatriations, completed in October 2022, cost $10,863, according to the documents from Global Affairs Canada. Canadians Kimberly Polman and Oumaima Chouay were returned to the country in that operation. Polman is

facing terrorism charges

and Chouay pleaded guilty last month to one charge of

participating in the activities of a terrorist group

.

The second operation, which occurred in April 2023, cost $132,746 in expenses for government staff and those returned to Canada.

Not all the expenses are detailed in the documents, but the total cost includes $20,331 for 23 hotel rooms at the Marriott hotel at the Montreal Airport, including room-service bills and a catering tab of nearly $3,000. At the time, four Canadian women — three of whom were arrested upon arrival — and their 10 children were returned to Canada,

The Canadian Press reported

.

Among that group was Edmontonian

Aimee Lucia Vasconez, who was married to two different ISIS fighters, according to an affidavit filed in court by an RCMP officer. Another, Ammara Amjad, was also arrested and faces a terrorism charge. 

Individual bills show that one room cost nearly $1,100, driven up from the original room cost of $638 by purchases of $95 worth of wine, a $105 room-service meal and $87 worth of items from the hotel gift store, including chocolate, chips and drugs such as Benadryl and Reactine.

That same room tipped $7 on an $8 coffee. Another room ordered $15 worth of children’s ice cream, and a third ordered white, red and sparkling wine at $25 apiece. One room’s food bill included two $24 smoked meat dishes.

The third repatriation operation, done in early July 2023, cost more than $27,500 and saw a government of Canada employee purchase snacks, including goldfish and granola bars, from Costco, and Timbits from Tim Hortons, for the operation. Hotel rooms in Montreal cost a bit more than $2,300.

Two Edmonton women,

Dina Kalouti and Helena Carson, were among that group. Both have been sentenced to six-month peace bonds and they are required to continue counselling with the Edmonton-based Organization for the Prevention of Violence (OPV), which provides programming for people seeking to leave extremist groups.

The documents redact a number of details, and 50 pages were not released, as they are under consultation. The documents do not appear to account for the costs of actually flying to Syria to get the women from detention camps; they include only the costs of transferring them within Canada.

Global Affairs Canada did not respond to National Post’s requests for comment by press time.

A number of Canadian women travelled to the Middle East when the Islamic State seized territory in Iraq and Syria more than a decade ago. However, the terrorist group lost much of its territory, and Canadians who had been living and fighting with the Islamic State were held in detention camps. This led to a major push, particularly from the United States, to have nations repatriate their citizens who were held in Syria.

In 2023 alone, the U.S. state department reported under then U.S. president Joe Biden, 14 countries — Canada among them — repatriated 3,500 citizens from where they were detained. Overall, the administration reported that nearly 7,000 family members of foreign fighters had been repatriated by 30 countries. The U.S.

bureau of counterterrorism warned

in December 2023 that more than half of those held in camps were under the age of 12 and if they remained, they would become vulnerable to ISIS recruitment, perhaps fuelling a resurgence of the terrorist group.

— With addition reporting by the Edmonton Journal and The Canadian Press

• Quebec woman pleads guilty to joining ISIL, sentenced to one day in custody
• Ruling ordering Ottawa to bring Canadian ISIL suspects home sparks security debate

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

In the wake of a stormy stretch in Canada-U.S. relations, the Canadian view of American leadership has plummeted.

Gallup’s latest survey of Canadian opinion

, conducted in May and June, found approval of Washington slipping to 15 per cent, statistically in line with sentiment when Donald Trump was president the first time.

Canadian opinion of leaders in Washington has fluctuated over time, showing a clear connection with who is sitting in the White House. For example, Canadian approval of American leadership averaged 61 per cent under Barack Obama, compared with 19 per cent in Trump’s first term and 41 per cent under Joe Biden.

Aside from an uptick in 2021, only a minority of Canadians have approved of Washington since 2017.

The latest downturn comes in the midst of diplomatic and trade tensions. Since returning to the White House, Trump has introduced high tariffs and continued with rhetoric suggesting Canada should become the “51st state.”

Gallup asked about four global powers during it recent World Poll. Germany’s leadership received the most positive ratings from Canadians. A slim majority of Canadians (54 per cent) approve of Berlin.

Canadians have a higher approval rating for Beijing than they do for Washington. It sits at 23 per cent, up eight points from last year’s poll.

Otherwise, the 79 per cent of Canadians who disapprove of U.S. leadership is statistically close to the 82 per cent who disapprove of Russia’s.

Meanwhile, Canadians’ view of their own leadership has improved considerably, rising 19 points from last year to 59 per cent now. The increase followed Mark Carney replacing Justin Trudeau as Liberal party leader and prime minister in March and his election victory in April.

Approval of Trudeau fell from 64 per cent in 2016 — his first full year in office — to a low of 40 per cent in 2024.

However, Canadians are gloomy about the state of the economy. Their optimism dropped to a new low in 2025, with 27 per cent saying their local economy is getting better, compared to 63 per cent who think it’s getting worse.

The share of Canadians who say it’s a good time to find a new job has fallen sharply down from 74 per cent in 2022 to 32 per cent in 2025. This is the lowest level of job optimism since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020 and the 2009 financial crisis.

The housing affordability crisis also remains widespread in Canada. One in four adults are satisfied with the availability of good, affordable housing, compared with 72 per cent who are dissatisfied.

Weak economic sentiment poses a test for Carney, says the folks at Gallup. “Sustaining public support may depend on whether his administration can reverse declining optimism and navigate a complicated relationship with Washington.”

• Trump ‘not joking’ about trying to seek third presidency
• FIRST READING: Survey finds it’s mostly Trump voters that want Canadians to be Americans

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

An air passenger rights advocate says that customers shouldn’t be afraid to enforce their own rights as a possible strike between Air Canada and its flight attendants looms ahead of the weekend.

On Wednesday, the airline received notice of a strike from the Air Canada Component of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which represents 10,000 flight attendants. The airline then issued lockout notice. A strike could happen on Saturday. The two sides cannot come to an agreement over wages and working conditions.

The potential strike has already led to some changes in travel plans for customers. The

airline said this week

it was starting to cancel flights with “a complete cessation of flying by Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge on August 16.” As Saturday approaches, president of advocacy group Air Passenger Rights Gábor Lukács said travellers should keep track of their interactions with the airline.

“Keep all documents, keep recordings, audio, video,” he told National Post on Friday. “And don’t be a pushover.”

Airlines must ensure “a passenger whose flight has been disrupted completes their journey – either on the original flight or through alternate travel arrangements. The aim must be to get the passenger to the destination indicated on their original ticket as soon as possible,”

per the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA)

.

Canada’s

Air Passenger Protection Regulations

(APPR) maintains that an airline is required to rebook a passenger on any carrier, including competitors, if it cannot be booked on the original airline.

Lukács said that passengers should not necessarily take the full refund being offered by the airline.

“If you take a refund, then it can be viewed as you waive your right to alternate transportation,” he said.

There are two kinds of cancellations in this case, said Lukács: preemptive and reactive.

“The preemptive cancelations we are seeing now when the strike has not begun,” he said. “You are going to see the reactive cancelations tomorrow, if there is a strike.”

He said the preemptive cancelations are “business decisions by the airline.”

He continued: “They don’t want to park the aircraft abroad or don’t want to fly it back empty. That’s within the carrier’s control so the airline owes passenger meals, accommodation, lump sum, compensation, up to $1,000 and they owe passengers, most importantly, rebooking, including on competitor airlines.”

The regulations do not prescribe the exact scope of a labour disruption, said the CTA in an emailed statement to National Post. “It is the airline’s responsibility to demonstrate that the specific flight disruption was due to a labour disruption within the meaning of the APPR, and therefore out of the airline’s control,” it said.

Lukács said that some customers have received cancellations from the airline without getting rebooked on another flight.

Passengers were sent emails from Air Canada “telling them that there are no flights available on other airlines for their destination. Air Canada claims that it did a search but was unable to rebook the passengers,” he wrote in a post on Facebook on Friday. “In the cases that I have seen, alternate flights were actually available, although for a higher price.”

Passengers should go out and buy a ticket on a competitor airline and send Air Canada the bill, said Lukács. “If you really don’t have money, I would still not take the refund,” he added.

Air Canada did not immediately respond to National Post’s request for comment.

For travellers with an itinerary that includes at least one international route, for example from Vancouver to Toronto to Paris, the “airline may be liable for the passengers’ meals, accommodation, lost wages, and all sort of expenses caused by the delay.”

If there is a strike, which is deemed beyond Air Canada’s control, the airline still owes passengers alternate transportation.

In a statement to National Post, the CTA said it would “closely monitor the situation and take appropriate actions, as required.” It recommends that travellers who have trips that may be affected by a labour disruption should contact the airline to confirm travel dates and ask what to do to prepare. It also says to consult the airline’s website regularly and to verify if travel insurance or credit card insurance covers their refunds for flight disruptions caused by labour disruptions.

“If your travel dates are flexible, you may wish to consider contacting the airline to ask if it will reschedule your trip,” per CTA. “Although airlines are not obligated to do so, sometimes, in advance of potential labour disruptions, they will waive fees related to rebooking or cancellation.”

• Air Canada shuts down conference 20 minutes in after flight attendants disrupt proceedings
• Air Canada says it will start cancelling flights as flight attendants give strike notice

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the B.C. Supreme Court against Amazon over its Alexa technology.

The lawsuit, submitted by B.C. law firm

Charney Lawyers

, alleges that Alexa products have collected more personal data from Canadian users than Amazon has disclosed. It also alleges that the tech giant retained the information, even when users tried to delete it, using it for business purposes such as training artificial intelligence and developing targeted advertising.

The class action was filed in B.C., on behalf of

representative plaintiff, Joseph Stoney,

but its aim is to be national in scope. If the class action is certified by the court, it would cover all Canadian residents who had an Amazon Alexa account between 2014 and July 19, 2023.

“Had they learned about this after signing up for Alexa, users would have discontinued their accounts,” the statement of claim asserts.

The essence of the lawsuit is the allegation that Amazon failed to obtain meaningful, informed consent for retention and use of this data. As a result, the alleged data collection and use breached both privacy and consumer protection laws in Canada.

“In its terms of service Amazon made explicit commitments to Alexa users regarding their privacy. However, rather than protecting users privacy, Amazon: (1) kept the data it took from Alexa indefinitely; (2) used that data to train its algorithms, machine learning programs and AI; and (3) failed to fully delete the data when customers asked it to.”

The suit sets out that since 2014, Amazon has been developing and selling Amazon “Echo” devices, which are controlled by its cloud-based voice assistant, Alexa. Alexa can activate intentionally or accidentally, the claim says.

Once Alexa begins streaming audio to the cloud, the audio interaction is transcribed to text, the lawsuit states. Then it is processed by an algorithm that instructs the Alexa how to respond to the user. If a request has been processed, a copy of the audio file, the transcription, the resulting instructions to Alexa, and any associated metadata is stored in an Amazon database, the claim alleges.

Prior to 2020, users had no way to delete Alexa interaction-related data, and it was stored indefinitely, says the claim. And even though Amazon introduced a deletion function in 2020, it adds, Amazon only deleted the audio file, while retaining a transcription, the instructions, and associated metadata.

“When a user chose to delete the data on one or more of their interactions with Alexa, Amazon changed what was visible to the user so that it appeared that the interactions had been completely deleted even though Amazon was actually retaining everything except the audio file,” the claim says.

Charney Lawyers also argues that some of this

data may have been collected accidentally

when Alexa mistook regular sounds for its “wake word.” This means conversations users never intended for the device might have been picked up, transcribed and saved.

The claim notes that in May 2023, the

U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint

against Amazon, alleging the company falsely represented that Alexa app users could delete voice recordings, transcripts and metadata. And instead, Amazon allegedly only deleted voice recordings, keeping transcripts and associated metadata.

In July 2023, Amazon agreed to pay a US$25-million fine and “effectively admitted to a number of instances of unlawful data misuse.”

The suit seeks damages, repayment of any profits Amazon gained from the use of the data, as well as repayment of the amount users paid for Alexa products and services.

For potential participants in the suit, there is

a registration page set up

by Charney Lawyers for people who want updates or to potentially take part in the action.

• The dangers of Canada leaving its digital sovereignty in American hands
• Unordered Amazon packages pile up in San Jose home for over a year

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Canadians are waking up to just how much power American tech companies have over their digital life. In April, Microsoft confirmed that U.S. law can override foreign privacy protections, even for data stored on servers outside the United States. That means if Canadian data is hosted by Microsoft, Amazon or Google, it can be accessed by U.S. authorities.

For Guillaume Beaumier, an assistant professor of political science and international studies at École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP) in Quebec City, it’s a clear sign Canada needs to take digital sovereignty seriously. In a recent Policy Options article, he argues that Canada has grown too dependent on U.S. cloud providers and tech infrastructure, and risks losing control over its economy, governance and security in the digital era.

National Post spoke to Beaumier about what digital sovereignty means and what steps Canada should be taking now. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

What does digital sovereignty mean in the Canadian context?

I think you can define digital sovereignty in multiple ways, and that’s the issue with the concept.

It can relate to the ability of the Canadian government to control its own digital ecosystem through regulation, and having the availability to force or influence companies to act in certain ways. It’s also, to some extent, the ability to have the economic independence to be able to produce digital services for Canadian citizens, in ways that are not dependent on having access to services coming from other places in the world.

It can also relate more broadly to the security of the nation. If you’re depending on other countries for accessing specific digital services, in times of crisis, you can end up in a position where you don’t have access to the services, and so the broader security of the country also depends on having the ability to produce the services on your own.

Why is digital sovereignty becoming an urgent issue?

For a very long time the United States has been using its control over the digital infrastructure around the world, so a lot of the digital services that we rely on are American companies and they also rely on physical infrastructures that are located in the United States. You can think of data centres in that regard.

And so, for a very long time, we were fine with it, we forgot that other countries like Russia or China, might have used this control over this digital ecosystem to its advantage, to survey the world, to sometimes even impede other countries.

You can see again what happened after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, where Microsoft stopped offering some of its services in Russia. And so, like I said, for a while most countries around the world would have been fine with that, especially western countries because we were allied countries with the United States, even sometimes collaborating with them. But as the (Donald) Trump administration came in and took a more coercive approach towards its traditional allies, it’s also making these countries more insecure about their dependence on the United States.

What are some of the biggest gaps in Canada’s digital sovereignty?

I think that we do lack, to a large extent, sufficient capacity to operate on our own, to have a digital ecosystem that can function without American companies. And so, if you think about our digital ecosystem, most social media platforms, if not all, are American companies. If you think about data centres, the main ones that are operating right now and that we rely on, are either in the United States or are owned by American companies on Canadian soil.

On the regulatory side, we have also seen the government struggling over the years, to enforce its own regulations, or to even want to regulate these platforms. So we threaten these companies, Google and Meta, to basically leave the country.

More recently, the government

decided to move back

on this decision to impose digital services taxes, and it’s an example of where the Canadian government seems to be struggling, because it relies primarily on American companies.

So to summarize what I just said, I think just this lack of the ability to offer basic digital services by Canadian companies is one of the big gaps right now.

What risks could Canada face if it continues to rely heavily on U.S.-based cloud providers and tech companies?

In times of crisis, they can be used as leverage against the Canadian government, so like during this trade negotiation, they can threaten to stop offering some services to Canada. There’s also the risk that when the government tries to regulate these companies, they can just threaten to exit the country.

You can see in the example of

Meta blocking news

because of being asked to share the revenue with news organizations. This has left our media ecosystem in a worse-off position. And in times where there are forest fires or other emergencies, information can be more difficult to access by citizens.

What do you suggest Canada should do?

I think there should be a strategy to invest and develop more national digital ecosystems, to reduce the reliance on American companies. It also should not shy away from regulating these big tech companies and level the playing field for Canadian companies. Basically, making sure they are being taxed, and that they contribute to the national economy.

Also, promoting the use of more open source software, in public administration and the digital ecosystem, could help reduce reliance on big tech companies, and prioritize the development of more digital expertise in Canada.

When you’re thinking of all the big projects the government wants to launch, like big national infrastructure projects, I think it would be a good moment to invest in having more data centres owned by Canadian companies, funded by the government.

With the new investments coming in the defence sector, some money could go towards the development of artificial intelligence (AI). I think this broad national plan to invest in Canadian digital capacities would be an essential thing to do in the years to come.

How can Canada balance digital sovereignty with the need to remain globally competitive and attract tech investment?

I think we just need to find a balance between still being open, we still want to rely on the valuable services that come from the United States, and elsewhere in the world, but to ensure our resilience in times of crisis, and have some basic capacities to function without the use of these services coming from the rest of the world.

This is the latest in a National Post series on How Canada Wins. Read earlier instalments here.

• Barry Appleton: Canada submits to China’s algorithmic colonialism
• Lisa Sygutek: Canadians have the power to fight back against Big Tech

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.