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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

While you may not want to see that video, it was in the public interest for people to be able to share it and comment on it. Any good journalist will tell you it’s important to bear witness to the world, even when it’s hard to watch. Australia’s Federal Court refused to extend the ban, but for weeks Australians couldn’t see the video. Think of the implications of Grant’s order and the risks this kind of censorship poses. Will war reporting be banned next?

The following month, Grant was at it again. Grant wrote to X to demand that a tweet from a woman named Celine Baumgarten be blocked after Baumgarten responded to a post about “Queer Club” for eight to 12-year-old children at a Victorian elementary school with the following comment: “Children should not be learning about sexualities at such a young, impressionable age. This is foul. Leave the kids alone.” People should obviously be free to oppose sexuality clubs for elementary schools without being labelled child abusers. That decision was overturned, too.

What’s most concerning is that, for every person fighting Australia’s eSafety commissioner to preserve free speech in court, there are countless others who were chilled from debating difficult topics online as a result of the legislation. That’s extremely unhealthy for a democracy, where people need to be able to have conversations about difficult topics, including using language others find offensive. It’s through the cut and thrust of these debates that we settle on solutions.

The Carney government should take Australia’s experience as a lesson: appointing a digital safety commissioner to police speech online will only lead to more censorship and more headaches for the government.

National Post

Josh Dehaas is interim litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a legal charity dedicated to defending Canadians’ rights and freedoms.