Canadians Wary of Internet Safety Legislation, Worry About Censorship: Federal Research

Most participants stressed it is the personal responsibility of users to avoid information they didn’t agree with or believed to be false.

Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani in Ottawa on Dec. 13, 2023. The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

Canadians are wary of legislation meant to address internet safety and “online harms,” according to in-house Privy Council research. Federal pollsters found Canadians are worried about censorship at the same time as Attorney General Arif Virani studies “best practices” on regulating legal online content.

“Discussing actions which could be taken to mitigate online misinformation and disinformation, participants stressed the role of individual responsibility,” researchers from The Strategic Counsel wrote in reports for the Privy Council, which was first covered by Blacklock’s Reporter. “On balance, most thought that it was ultimately the responsibility of users to avoid information that they did not agree with or believed to be untrue.”

Respondents felt it was of “critical importance” to be able to leave comments and have their voices heard when it came to policies and initiatives that would impact them, according to the June 12 and May 11 reports “Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views.”

The federal government had said it would attempt by Dec. 31, 2023, to reintroduce a 2021 bill around regulating online harms. “It is not going to be longer than the fall but of course I can’t give you a specific date,” then-Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez testified last May at the House of Commons heritage committee.

No bill was introduced. In 2021, Bill C-36, “An Act To Amend The Criminal Code” proposed handing out hefty fines for legal content deemed “likely to foment detestation or vilification,” but the legislation lapsed in the last Parliament when the 2021 election was called.

In 2024, cabinet is expected to introduce legislation focused on stopping “online harms“ and ”hate speech.” But Mr. Virani said in December he did not want the legislation to go down the path of telling people “what to think, or how to criticize people,” or trying to curb free speech.

That legislation will likely focus on hate speech, terrorist content, content that incites violence, child sexual abuse material, and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images,” which was outlined in the Liberal Party’s 2021 platform.

The report said internet users did not feel any additional legislation was necessary. “While most believed harmful content online represented a growing concern, few felt it to be a major issue at present,” it said, adding that several felt it was possible to avoid harmful content by simply blocking it or avoiding platforms that had it.

“While a few felt actions should be taken to limit the reach or prohibit harmful online content several were concerned these efforts might have the unintended consequence of impeding what they viewed as the rights of individuals to freely express themselves online,” wrote researchers.

When participants were asked if they were concerned about the spread of misinformation and disinformation, all reported feeling “some degree of concern,” but also expressed reservations about the potential for government censorship to combat it. Many felt the federal government should ensure all information posted on its website is accurate and verifiable, which would be a better way to combat information and disinformation online.

The report’s findings were drawn from federal focus groups in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, and Atlantic Canada under an $814,741 contract with The Strategic Counsel.

Mr. Virani said last November that he was studying “international best practices” on regulating the internet, but gave no examples. “We are studying what’s working in foreign jurisdictions and we’re definitely working with different online entities including online companies,” he said. “It is really critical that we get this right.”