The government’s online harms bill, led by Canadian Heritage, is likely to be introduced in the coming weeks. My series on why the department faces a significant credibility gap on the issue opened with a look at its misleading and secretive approach to the 2021 online harms consultation, including its decision to only disclose public submissions when compelled to do so by law and releasing a misleading “What We Heard” report that omitted crucial information. Today’s post focuses on another Canadian Heritage consultation which occurred months later on proposed anti-hate plans. As the National Post reported earlier this year, after the consultation launched, officials became alarmed when responses criticizing the plan and questioning government priorities began to emerge. The solution? The department remarkably decided to filter out the critics from participating in the consultation by adding a new question that short-circuited it for anyone who responded that they did not think anti-hate measures should be a top government priority.
Archive for April 12th, 2023

Law Bytes
Episode 242: Sukesh Kamra on Law Firm Adoption of Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Technologies
byMichael Geist

July 28, 2025
Michael Geist
July 21, 2025
Michael Geist
June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
Carney’s Digital Recalibration: How the Government is Trending Away from Justin Trudeau’s Digital Policy
Let Competition Be the Guide: Why the Government and CRTC Got It Right on Wholesale Fibre Broadband Access
Commentary: Ensuring the Sovereignty and Security of Canadian Health Data
The Law Bytes Podcast Law Society of Ontario CPD Professionalism Pack
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 242: Sukesh Kamra on Law Firm Adoption of Artificial Intelligence and Innovative Technologies