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 187: Jeff Elgie on What the Bill C-18 Deal with Google Means for the Future of the Canadian News Sector
byMichael Geist

December 4, 2023
Michael Geist
November 27, 2023
Michael Geist
November 20, 2023
Michael Geist
November 13, 2023
Michael Geist
November 6, 2023
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 188: Consumers, Competition or Corporate Cash Grab? – My Bill C-11 Appearance at the CRTC
My CRTC Appearance on Bill C-11: Why Isn’t the Commission Concerned with Competition, Consumer Choice, and Affordability?
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 187: Jeff Elgie on What the Bill C-18 Deal With Google Means for the Future of the Canadian News Sector
Skillful Negotiation or Legislative Fail? Taking Stock of the Bill C-18 Deal With Google
Salvaging Bill C-18: Government Upends Legislation To Bring Google Onside the Online News Act