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 239: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Digital Services Tax
byMichael Geist

June 30, 2025
Michael Geist
June 23, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
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
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 239: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Digital Services Tax
Canada’s DST Debacle a Case Study of Digital Strategy Trouble
Canadian Government Caves on Digital Services Tax After Years of Dismissing the Risks of Trade Retaliation