Go Ad Free

Legal scholars Bruce Pardy and Ryan Alford warned MPs this week that Bill C-9, the Liberals’ latest hate-speech bill, would give prosecutors sweeping powers to target unpopular opinions.

DESPICABLE LOSERS: MP @AndrewLawton calls out the Liberals for laughing at @PardyBruce:

"You didn't have the privilege of seeing the Liberal members of this committee snickering as you were talking about the Liberal government's assaults on civil liberties in the past." pic.twitter.com/jng7EPh2xm

— Sheila Gunn Reid (@SheilaGunnReid) October 23, 2025

Testifying before the House of Commons Justice Committee, Professor Bruce Pardy said that by lowering the threshold for what counts as hate speech and removing the requirement for attorney-general consent, “it opens the way for potential politically motivated prosecutions.”

MUST WATCH: Professor @PardyBruce warns that C-9, the Liberals' new hate crime law, will be used to criminalize peaceful dissident speech.

He reads to the Justice Committee from Carney's 2022 Globe and Mail op-ed, which called the Freedom Convoy "sedition." pic.twitter.com/ImXr4e6TSh

— Sheila Gunn Reid (@SheilaGunnReid) October 23, 2025

Pardy said the proposed law would leave citizens uncertain about what speech is permitted:

“You will have a criminal provision that is completely uncertain in its meaning. The people who are out there on the street will have no conception about where the line is between things that are OK and things that are not. … If you have the political wherewithal, the means to direct certain outcomes … certain prosecutions … then of course that’s what you will do. And that is a poor way to construct the law.”

Pressed by Conservative MP Aaron Gunn on the government’s pattern of restricting expression through prior bills C-11, C-18 and C-63, Pardy said there appeared to be “a determination to make sure that the government is the one supervising people’s speech.”

🔥@Professors torch Trudeau’s “hate speech” bill.@PardyBruce: “Bill C-9 opens the way for politically motivated prosecutions… completely uncertain in its meaning.”@ryan_p_alford warns the Supreme Court could cave—putting free speech itself on the chopping block. pic.twitter.com/XeQphSMoKS

— Sheila Gunn Reid (@SheilaGunnReid) October 23, 2025

He drew a sharp line between legitimate limits on violent threats and the broader curbs now being advanced:

“It’s perfectly adequate to limit speech by saying you cannot use speech to threaten violence. … But all of these legislative initiatives … including C-9 … are attempting to cross that threshold and say, even if violence is not involved, you’re still not allowed to say certain things because we don’t like it. That’s where you get into dangerous territory.”

Pardy added that unlike the United States, “Hate speech is not a thing in the U.S. because the courts have said that is protected speech. … Yet here the government is trying … everywhere … to limit how people talk.”

MUST WATCH: Professor @PardyBruce warns that C-9, the Liberals' new hate crime law, will be used to criminalize peaceful dissident speech.

He reads to the Justice Committee from Carney's 2022 Globe and Mail op-ed, which called the Freedom Convoy "sedition." pic.twitter.com/ImXr4e6TSh

— Sheila Gunn Reid (@SheilaGunnReid) October 23, 2025

Gunn asked whether that could lead to Canadians being arrested for “edgy social-media posts” or political dissent, citing Liberal MPs who have accused figures such as Jordan Peterson and Charlie Kirk of “hate speech.”

“Potentially, yes,” Pardy replied. “You could see happening in Canada the kind of thing that has happened in the U.K., where the police are sent out on missions to crack down on people saying dangerous things online. That is not the situation you want in a country that claims to be free.”

Professor Ryan Alford warned the Supreme Court itself might not defend speech rights if C-9 is challenged. Referring to the Ward v. Quebec case that nearly penalized a comedian for offensive jokes, he said the narrow 5-4 decision was “extremely troubling.”

“I would really have strong fears that … the Supreme Court of Canada … would reevaluate that framework [and] balance freedom of speech against some other compelling objective,” Alford said, calling that prospect “fundamentally dangerous to democratic accountability and legitimacy.”