Josh Dehaas: Canada is about to repeat Australia’s online censorship nightmare

Photo by Getty Images

Article content

When reporters asked Heritage Minister Marc Miller last month what the Liberal government plans to do with its majority, he confirmed they intend to use it to pass a new bill to regulate the speech of adults online. Here we go again!

Article content

The Carney government had been saying for months that they intend to pass “online harms” legislation, but it was unclear before Miller’s comments whether that meant banning kids from accessing social media or resurrecting aspects of Trudeau’s failed online harms bills, C-36 and C-63. Miller confirmed the goal is both. “Online harms don’t end as soon as you turn 15 or 16 or 17,” Miller said, also noting that “Segments of society can be violently attacked online and it’s time for social media and social platforms to have some responsibility.

Article content

Article content

Article content

Miller’s comments about “some responsibility” suggest that although the Carney government may be willing to drop the chilling Trudeau-era plan to allow judges to jail people who may commit speech crimes in the future, and to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the power to fine people of up to $50,000 for mean tweets, they may be intending to push ahead with creating the previously proposed digital safety commissioner. The Trudeau proposal was to give this new federal bureaucracy the power to enforce a “duty” on social media companies “to act responsibly” by proactively blocking “harmful” speech or face potentially enormous fines.

Article content

Article content

The Liberals ought to take a close look at Australia’s experience with similar legislation before they spend their political capital on this. Australia’s Online Safety Act 2021 has quickly turned into the kind of bureaucratic censorship regime that free speech advocates had warned about. Under Australia’s law, the government gave eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant the power to police online “abusive” and “violent” speech. She’s used that power to censor speech — and has been repeatedly overturned on judicial review.

Article content

Article content

In March 2024, Grant threatened X with a fine of up to A$782,500 for allowing Canadian activist Chris Elston (sometimes known online as Billboard Chris) to post a tweet linking to a story about the appointment of transgender activist Teddy Cook to a World Health Organization panel in which he stated: “This woman (yes, she’s female) is part of a panel of 20 ‘experts’ hired by the WHO to draft their policy on caring for ‘trans people.’ People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards.” Harsh words, no doubt, but clearly traditionally-protected speech. After Grant’s order, X geoblocked the post from Australia, but fought in favour of free speech until the decision was overturned in 2025.

Article content

Article content

In April 2024, one day after a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar” stabbed a bishop at The Good Shepherd Church near Sydney, Grant ordered X to remove viral videos showing the gruesome attack. Grant didn’t need to order Google, Microsoft, Snap or TikTok to remove the videos; they had already removed them as most rational companies would when facing large fines.