New Report Urges Repeal of Human Rights Speech Offence Provisions Across Canada

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has released a new report titled Speech on Trial: Censorship by Human Rights Commissions, authored by veteran journalist and public policy analyst Nigel Hannaford and Justice Centre President John Carpay. The report examines how certain sections of provincial human rights legislation that prohibit expression deemed “discriminatory” or likely to expose individuals to “hatred or contempt” are being applied to investigate and penalize lawful speech by Canadians.

According to the report, these provisions allow human rights commissions and tribunals to pursue cases involving expression itself, rather than focusing solely on discriminatory actions or conduct. It argues that this has led to situations where individuals are drawn into lengthy and costly legal proceedings over statements of opinion or belief.

The report further contends that respondents often face significant financial and personal burdens, even when complaints are ultimately dismissed. It raises concerns about procedural fairness, noting that human rights tribunals may not offer the same safeguards typically found in traditional court systems.

Several recent cases are highlighted as examples of how these laws are being applied. In British Columbia, former Chilliwack school trustee Barry Neufeld was ordered by the BC Human Rights Tribunal in February 2026 to pay $750,000 in damages following comments related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policies in schools. In Alberta, business owner Karen Richert is currently facing a complaint related to flyers opposing a proposed rainbow crosswalk in her community. The report also references other cases involving comedy, political commentary, and personal expression.

To address these concerns, the report calls for the repeal of specific provisions in provincial human rights statutes that it says enable the regulation of lawful speech. It identifies the following sections for removal:

Section 7 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code;
Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act;
Section 14 of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code;
Section 18 of Manitoba’s Human Rights Code;
Section 11 of Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms;
Section 7 of New Brunswick’s Human Rights Act;
Section 5(f) and Section 7 of Nova Scotia’s Human Rights Act;
Section 19 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Human Rights Act;
Section 12 of Prince Edward Island’s Human Rights Act;
Section 13 of the Northwest Territories’ Human Rights Act.

The report argues that removing these provisions would not weaken core human rights protections. It notes that existing laws against discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of goods and services would remain intact, as would Criminal Code provisions addressing the wilful promotion of hatred. Instead, it suggests the changes would refocus human rights legislation on its original purpose while strengthening protections for freedom of expression.

Commenting on the issue, co-author Nigel Hannaford said human rights commissions were established to address genuine discrimination, not to regulate lawful opinions or enforce ideological conformity.

He added that when Canadians face prolonged legal proceedings and significant financial consequences for expressing lawful views, many may become discouraged from participating in public discourse.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms describes itself as Canada’s leading civil liberties organization focused on defending Charter rights through the courts and public advocacy. Founded in 2010, the organization states that it relies entirely on voluntary donations and provides official tax receipts to supporters.

Report Warns Government May Gain Unprecedented Access to Canadians’ Digital Identity

A new report from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms warns that recent federal policies and proposed legislation could dramatically expand government access to Canadians’ personal digital information.

Expanding Surveillance Powers

The report, Privacy Collapse: Canada’s Expanding Surveillance State, authored by journalist and policy analyst Nigel Hannaford, argues that Canada is moving toward a system in which government agencies hold far greater surveillance capabilities. Hannaford suggests this shift could have significant implications for individual privacy, autonomy, and civil liberties.

Two proposed federal bills—Bill C‑2, the Strong Borders Act, and Bill C‑8, new cybersecurity legislation—are highlighted as key drivers of this expansion. According to the report, these bills would grant authorities broad powers to obtain subscriber information, metadata, and even private communications such as emails or text messages from service providers, in some cases without requiring a warrant.

Secret Orders and Infrastructure Access

The report also raises concerns about the government’s ability to issue secret directives to telecommunications companies and digital infrastructure providers. These orders could compel companies to restrict services, remove certain technologies, weaken encryption, access internal systems, or disconnect individuals from digital networks. Critics argue that such powers could be exercised without sufficient transparency or judicial oversight.

Growing Integration of Digital Systems

Hannaford warns that the increasing integration of digital identity systems, financial monitoring tools, and expanded data‑sharing between institutions could create a comprehensive surveillance framework. By linking identity, financial transactions, and online activity, the report argues, authorities could gain the ability to track many aspects of Canadians’ daily lives.

The report points to the federal government’s use of the Emergencies Act in 2022—when bank accounts connected to protest activity were frozen without court orders—as an example of how broad powers can be used in practice.

Call for Stronger Privacy Protections

The Justice Centre urges governments to reinforce privacy safeguards and ensure robust judicial oversight before authorities are granted access to personal data. The report stresses that while security measures may be introduced in the name of public safety, they must not erode fundamental freedoms.

Hannaford concludes that privacy is not about hiding wrongdoing but about protecting personal autonomy and dignity—and warns that once surveillance systems are established, they are rarely dismantled.