Most Canadians oppose internet censorship, federal report finds

” even those who voiced concern over potentially ‘harmful’ content on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat held that it ‘was the responsibility of individuals’ and not government to determine what Canadians can and cannot view. “

Most Canadians want the Trudeau government to keep its hands off access to the internet, according to a federal report.

According to information published January 3 by Blacklock’s Reporter, an in-house Privy Council report titled Continuous Qualitative Data Collection Of Canadians’ Views has found that most Canadians believe the federal government should not introduce legislation that would censor internet content.

“Discussing actions which could be taken to mitigate online misinformation and disinformation, participants stressed the role of individual responsibility,” federal government researchers wrote in the report.

According to the report, even those who voiced concern over potentially harmful content on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat held that it “was the responsibility of individuals” and not government to determine what Canadians can and cannot view.

The research was contracted out to Strategic Counsel, which gathered information from focus groups in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada.

“A number were of the view it was of critical importance for Canadians to be able to leave comments and have their voices heard regarding initiatives and policies important to them,” the report stated.

According to the research, Canadians were unsure that legislation to censor internet activity was necessary, or even a good idea, explaining that they could “filter out hateful content” without the government’s intervention.

“While most believed harmful content online represented a growing concern few felt it to be a major issue at present,” the report said. “Several were of the view that individuals were typically able to avoid harmful content by blocking it or not utilizing platforms on which it was present.”

“Participants were asked if they were concerned about the spread of misinformation and disinformation,” the research added. “Though all participants reported feeling some degree of concern some also expressed reservations about the potential for censorship in any attempt by the federal government to prevent the proliferation of false information online.”

The research comes as Canadians are facing increased internet censorship thanks to the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

This past June, Trudeau’s internet censorship law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was passed by the Senate. This law mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms.  

As a result, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked all access to news content in Canada, while Google  agreed to pay Canadian legacy media $100 million under the new legislation.  

Critics of Trudeau’s recent laws, such as tech mogul Elon Musk, have commented that the legislation shows that “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”   

Musk made the comments after the nation’s telecommunications regulator announced that due to new powers granted to it via the Online Streaming Act, certain podcasters will now have to “register” with the government.

Just last week, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s official broadcast regulator, announced it might soon be producing draft rules for a pre-election “code of conduct” for newsrooms, which includes print and online journalists.

The “code of conduct” can be legally enforced thanks to a little known clause in the Online News Act. Clause, 27.1.b.iv says newsrooms that want Google money must demonstrate full compliance with a “code of ethics.” This “code” was not defined, however, and Canada has no such national code of newsroom ethics.

Related Topics:#ClareMarieMerkowsky #FreeSpeech #InternetCensorship #LifeSiteNews #OnlineDisinformation #OnlineNewsAct CRTC

Up Next

Canada prepares to launch public inquiry into China’s alleged election meddling

Don't Miss

City of Edmonton defends response to homeless encampments

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Business / 5 hours ago

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Alberta / 8 hours ago

From Underdog to Top Broodmare

Alberta

How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier

Published on October 30, 2025

Todayville

Frame grab from CTV News website

The Rewrite

(Editor’s note: I was going to write on the media’s handling of the Alberta government’s decision to order striking teachers back to work and invoke Section 33 of the Charter in doing so. But former Alberta premier Jason Kenney provided such a fulsome dissection of an absence of balance and its consequences in terms of public trust on X that I asked him if The Rewrite could publish it. He said yes and here it is – Peter Menzies.)

By Jason Kenney

This”story” is an object lesson for why trust in legacy media has plummeted, and alt right media audiences have grown.

Here CTV “digital news producer” @AngeMAmato (she/her) writes a story about “experts” calling the use of Sec. 33 “a threat to democracy.”

Who are the experts?

A left wing academic, and a left wing activist. The latter, Howard Sapers, is a former Liberal MLA (which the article does not mention) for a party that is so marginal, it has not elected an MLA in over a decade.

For good measure CTV goes on to quote two left wing union bosses, who of course are predictably outraged.

A more accurate headline would be “Four people on the left angry about use of Notwithstanding Clause.” Which is the opposite of news. It’s the ultimate “Dog Bites Man” non-story.

Subscribe to The Rewrite

Did the CTV producer make any effort to post a balanced story by asking for comment from academics / lawyers / think tanks who support use of Sec. 33? Did she call the @CDNConstFound or the @MLInstitute’s Judicial Power Project? Did she attempt to reach any of these four scholars, who just published their views in a @nationalpost op-ed last week?

Did she have an editor who asked why her story lacked any attempt at balance?

And did anyone at CTV pause for a moment to ponder how tendentious it is to accuse a democratically elected legislature of acting “undemocratically” by invoking a power whose entire purpose is to ensure democratic accountability?

She provides some historical context about prior use of Sec. 33. Why does that context not include the fact that most democratically elected provincial governments (including Alberta under Premier Lougheed, and Saskatchewan under NDP Premier Blakeney) agreed to adopt the Charter *only if* it included the Notwithstanding Clause to allow democratically elected Legislatures to ensure a democratic check and balance against the abuse of undemocratic, unaccountable judicial power?

Why does she not mention that for the first 33 years of the Charter era, the Canadian Courts ruled that there was no constitutionally protected right to strike?

Why doesn’t she quote an expert pointing out that Allan Blakeney defended the Saskatchewan Legislature’s 1986 use of Sec. 33 to end a strike as “a legitimate use of the Clause?” Or refer to Peter Lougheed’s 1987 commitment to use Sec. 33 if the courts invented a right to strike?

Share

Many thoughtful criticisms can be levelled against Section 33. Being undemocratic is not one of them.

So why do we see so much agitprop like this masquerading as news from so many legacy media outlets?

IMO, there are two possible answers:

1) They are blind to their own biases; and / or

2) People like @AngeMAmato believe that they have a moral imperative to be “progressive journalists” which trumps the boringly old fashioned professional imperative to be objective and balanced.

Whatever the reason, “journalists” like this have no one to blame but themselves for growing distrust of legacy media, and the consequent emergence of non traditional media platforms.

Donate

A guest post by

Jason Kenney

Subscribe to The Rewrite

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Rewrite, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Censorship Industrial Complex

Pro-freedom group to expose dangers of Liberal ‘hate crime’ bill before parliamentary committee

Published on October 29, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canada’s Liberal justice minister has confirmed that the legislation would allow a person to be criminally charged for social media posts deemed offensive by the government.

A top Canadian pro-freedom group has been asked to testify regarding the dangers of the Liberals’ proposed internet censorship legislation.

In an October 28 press release, the Democracy Fund (TDF) announced that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has invited them to appear at the House of Commons to debate Bill C-9, which experts have warned could kill free speech in Canada.

“Our lawyers have extensive experience defending Canadians accused of breaching speech codes or uttering speech deemed ‘offensive’ by authorities,” TDF litigation director Mark Joseph stated. “We look forward to sharing our legal expertise and concerns about Bill C-9 with the Committee.”

Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

Bill C-9 was brought forth in the House of Commons on September 19 by Justice Minister Sean Fraser. The Liberals have boasted that the bill will make it a crime for people to block the entrance to, or intimidate people from attending, a church or other place of worship, a school, or a community center. The bill would also make it a crime to promote so-called hate symbols and would, in effect, ban the display of certain symbols such as the Nazi flag.

Canada’s Liberal justice minister has confirmed that the legislation would allow a person to be criminally charged for social media posts deemed offensive by the government.

Currently, the legislation is undergoing debate as Canadian lawmakers discuss how best to frame and implement the bill. Issues with the legislation, as pointed out by TDF, include “broad and undefined language” that could allow for widespread censorship online.

TDF warned that the bill “could be used to justify increased censorship and restrict Canadians’ rights to peacefully assemble, protest, and speak freely, particularly on digital platforms.”

The Committee meeting, scheduled for November 6, is a crucial part of Parliament’s review process before the bill continues to its third reading in the House of Commons.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) president John Carpay has warned that Canada will be a “police state by Christmas” if lawmakers pass three new bills introduced by the federal Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Carpay further predicted that Bill C-9 would “empower police” and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

The proposed legislation mirrors a movement in Germany to restrict sharing controversial or anti-government content online by arresting citizens who posted content deemed ‘hateful’ by the German government.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported in June, German authorities conducted more than 180 operations across the country, targeting individuals accused of spreading hate and incitement online – most of them tied to content considered far-right.