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 241: Scott Benzie on How Government Policy Eroded Big Tech Support for Canadian Culture
byMichael Geist
July 21, 2025
Michael Geist
June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
June 23, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 241: Scott Benzie on How Government Policy Has Eroded Big Tech Support for Canadian Culture
What Is the Canadian Government Doing With Its Incoherent Approach to TikTok?
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 240: Dean Beeby on Why Canada’s Language Laws May Stop Government From Posting Access to Information Records Online
Risky Business: The Legal and Privacy Concerns of Mandatory Age Verification Technologies
Another Canadian Digital Policy Own Goal: Corporate TikTok Ban Leads to Millions in Lost Cultural Group Support