Is Free Speech Under Threat in Canada?

Reflections on my interview with Candice Malcolm

The issue of free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, but in Canada, recent debates raise questions about its resilience. As a First Nations Councillor and host of the Bigger Than Me podcast, I find these discussions to be not just important but essential.

In a recent episode, I had the opportunity to engage with Candice Malcolm, founder of True North Media, on the contentious topics of Indian residential school denialism, freedom of expression, and the potential criminalization of certain conversations.

The conversation began with a reflection on Candice’s publication, Grave Error, a book challenging the dominant narratives around unmarked graves near residential schools. While some see the book as an essential contribution to the discourse, others have labeled it as denialism, with calls to censor its distribution. These reactions, Candice argued, highlight an alarming trend: the suppression of dissenting voices in the name of protecting certain perspectives.

This brings us to the heart of the issue: Should denying or questioning aspects of Indian residential schools be criminalized? The proposal by NDP MP Leah Gazan to equate such denialism with Holocaust denial raises important questions about the balance between protecting marginalized communities and upholding free speech. For many, this is not just a legal matter but a deeply moral and political one.

As someone who works closely with Indigenous communities, I understand the pain and trauma tied to residential schools. At the same time, I worry about the unintended consequences of criminalizing speech. By restricting dialogue, we risk alienating potential allies and fostering a perception that Indigenous communities seek to silence rather than engage. Worse, it detracts from pressing issues like clean drinking water, infrastructure development, and economic opportunities—issues that directly impact the quality of life for many First Nations people.

During our discussion, I reflected on the importance of fostering dialogue, even when the topics are uncomfortable. Conversations like these help us navigate complex historical and social issues, ensuring that no single narrative goes unquestioned. Suppressing these discussions, I believe, not only undermines free speech but also weakens the foundation of reconciliation.

The broader question we must confront is whether Canada can remain a nation that values diverse perspectives, even when they challenge prevailing beliefs. Free speech is not just about protecting popular opinions; it is about safeguarding the space for dissent, debate, and growth.

In the end, my conversation with Candice reinforced a critical point: Free speech is not just a right—it’s a responsibility. To truly honor this principle, we must embrace complexity, encourage dialogue, and resist the temptation to censor. Only then can we move toward a more informed, unified, and compassionate society.

So, is free speech under threat in Canada? The answer lies in whether we are willing to defend it, even when the conversations are difficult.