The Quiet Rise of Municipal Censorship 

Much of the national conversation about free speech in Canada focuses on Parliament and the provinces. 

For instance, many Canadians are understandably concerned about Bill C-9, a federal proposal that would make it easier to pursue hate propaganda complaints against religious individuals for expressing their beliefs. Many of ARPA’s supporters are also aware of Quebec’s troubling public prayer ban.  

These developments matter. But while federal and provincial decision-making generates headlines, a quieter movement is unfolding at the municipal level. 

Municipal Powers Reach Farther than Canadians Realize 

For most Canadians, towns and cities may appear purely administrative. They fix roads, issue permits, and enforce traffic bylaws. Yet their administrative powers give municipalities a lot of control over speech in the public square. They control transit advertising, public venues, signage, and local law enforcement. Through these administrative tools, municipalities can limit how Canadians can speak up on important political issues. 

Sometimes, municipalities overreach with bylaws that sharply limit freedom of expression, hoping the public will not notice or push back.  

For example, in Winnipeg, a city councillor recently proposed an anti-nuisance bylaw that would have prohibited most demonstrations within 100 metres of “vulnerable” locations including schools, hospitals, universities, and other designated sites. Had it passed, the measure would have barred peaceful pro-life rallies near campuses or even parents protesting changes to school policies outside their child’s primary school. Fortunately, the public caught wind of Winnipeg’s proposed bylaw and protested, so city council shelved the proposal.  

Of course, Winnipeg is not the only example. In recent years, several municipalities across Canada — including Calgary, London, and St. Catharines —enacted censorship bylaws targeting pro-life advocacy. These measures ban door-to-door distribution of materials such as ultrasound images of unborn children unless they are sealed in envelopes and accompanied by warning labels that inaccurately describe the content as graphic or potentially disturbing. These bylaws also require people delivering the flyers to provide their names and home addresses, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation. 

In response to these bylaws, ARPA launched a lawsuit against the City of St. Catharines, prompting the city to repeal its bylaw. That legal challenge also pushed three other municipalities across Canada to amend their bylaws to prevent ARPA from challenging them. ARPA has continued this work by challenging the City of London’s bylaw. That case is ongoing. 

In the above cases, the cities’ efforts to censor political speech were obvious. The public became aware and pushed back. But unfortunately, municipal restrictions against expression are not always this obvious. Instead of passing controversial bylaws that may attract some media scrutiny, cities may rely on other subtle mechanisms to suppress speech.  

The Influence of Soft Censorship  

Municipalities increasingly rely on soft censorship tools—not necessarily bylaws—to limit lawful political expression. Take Durham Region’s recently implemented Community Based Hate Reporting program. The program encourages residents to report “hateful” incidents even when no crime has occurred. Similar reporting systems operate in Ottawa and Hamilton. 

The program invites complaints about things like “discriminatory” flyers, text messages, or even offensive jokes, and offers to help residents forward those reports to police. 

This raises obvious questions: what counts as discriminatory? If someone voices opposition to medical transitioning for minors, could that be treated as discrimination? And if no crime has occurred, why bother involve the police at all? 

Durham Regional Police offer an answer. On their website, the police explain that a reported “hate” incident, although not a crime, may be determined to be a crime after investigation. Concerningly, it does not take much for police to justify an investigation. Durham police have even suggested that encouraging people online to boycott pro-LGBT businesses would warrant investigation. 

Supporters may insist that programs like Durham’s will not undermine freedom of expression since the police cannot charge someone unless he or she violates the Criminal Code. But experience elsewhere suggests otherwise. In the United Kingdom, hate incident reporting systems have enabled police to question and intimidate individuals over lawful speech. 

The Weaponization of Integrity Commissioners  
Municipal integrity commissioners also censor unpopular opinions. They are responsible for advising city councillors and holding them accountable by ensuring they follow the municipality’s code of conduct. However, in practice, integrity commissioners are sometimes used by some city councillors to target dissenting city councillors. 

For example, in 2022, a conservative city councillor in London was investigated by the integrity commissioner for daring to speak out against the city’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. Several councillors who were upset with him relied on the commissioner’s report to attempt to reprimand him.  

In 2023, a councillor in Chatham-Kent vehemently spoke out against city council’s flag policy, and the integrity commissioner found her in breach of the municipality’s code of conduct.  Relying on that decision, city council suspended her. Thankfully, the Ontario Divisional Court struck down the commissioner’s finding as unreasonable, but only after long and costly litigation. 

The Bottom Line  

Taken together, these examples show a clear pattern: under banners like diversity, safety, inclusion, and ethics, many municipalities find clever ways to suppress speech—especially speech that challenges prevailing cultural and political views. 

This trend often goes unnoticed because municipal councils operate with much less oversight compared to the provinces and the federal government.  

For Canadians—especially Christians who hold countercultural beliefs—this should be a wakeup call. The front lines of free expression are not only in Parliament or provincial legislatures. They are in our town and city halls too.  

Courts can hold municipalities accountable, but litigation is slow, costly, and uncertain. This is why protecting free expression requires vigilance by the public. Christians should monitor proposed bylaws, participate in consultations, and speak out against subtle efforts to expand municipal control over speech. Municipal government may seem mundane—roads, garbage, parking—but it also governs spaces where Canadians speak, assemble, and debate. If we allow free speech to weaken at the local level, the consequences will ripple far beyond city limits.