Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez speaks in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 23, 2022 (Screenshot)
The expert panel tasked with advising the federal government on the creation of a new bill to address “online harms” says “disinformation” should be tackled, yet it warns that the phenomena cannot be defined in legislation.
In late March, Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez announced that a panel of 12 experts would be holding discussions to make recommendations to the government for the tabling of a new bill to regulate online content.
“The internet has allowed for more mis- and disinformation, more polarization than ever before, and we’re much more likely to be exposed to and hurt by unacceptable hateful content,” said Rodriguez at the time.
The government’s previous effort on that front, Bill C-36, collapsed when the last Parliament was dissolved.
The expert panel held 10 sessions and concluded its meetings in June, covering a range of topics on internet regulation. Session 8 on June 3 was dedicated to “disinformation.”
“The Expert Advisory Group agreed that the problem has grown to become one of the most pressing and harmful forms of malicious behaviour online,” says a summary of the discussions provided by Heritage Canada.
The discussions were conducted under Chatham House Rule, which prevents the identification of any speaker or participants involved, hence there is no attribution of who said what.
The experts reportedly discussed how “disinformation can be used to incite hatred and violence, undermine democracy and democratic discourse, reduce trust between citizens, and threaten national security and public health.”
As an example, they mentioned disinformation in the context of the pandemic and how it “undermine[d]” democracy in the United States. There were no further details provided.
Despite “most experts” agreeing that the government must do something to tackle disinformation, they said that the government’s role “must be carefully circumscribed to protect fundamental rights.”
However, “Given the serious and urgent nature of the harms created by disinformation, experts argued that legislation on online safety should consider disinformation in some capacity.”
Definition Problematic
Although the experts pressed the government to tackle disinformation, “most” expressed “extreme caution” in defining the term in legislation.
They said it’s problematic because the government cannot be an arbiter of what is true and what is false, and disinformation usually carries an intent that is hard to establish.
The experts also mentioned the failed attempt in the U.S. to establish a Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) as an example of how “Government-created definitions of disinformation cannot withstand public scrutiny.”
Homeland Security announced the creation of the DGB in late April, with Nina Jankowicz at the helm, but it was dissolved shortly after due to public backlash, and Jankowicz resigned.
Jankowicz was accused by board detractors of being partisan and of herself peddling disinformation by, for example, calling Hunter Biden’s laptop a “Trump campaign product.”
The laptop, which contains information on the U.S. President’s son’s shady business dealings and lifestyle, has since been authenticated.
The experts said countering disinformation coming from foreign states could be easier to address and justify.
Other notable takes include a proposition to reinforce disinformation regulation during elections or public health crises.
The government-selected experts also worked from the basis that their current work looking at forms of censorship is legitimate, but could be abused by future governments.
“Experts expressed concern over how any measures to address disinformation could be replicated or abused by Governments that do not respect fundamental rights,” the summary says.
A previous analysis of the panel of 12 experts showed they mostly share the government’s ideology on different issues such as COVID-19 measures, advocating for more vaccine mandates, labelling alternative viewpoints “conspiracies,” and criticizing the recent freedom-themed protests.
