Freedom of expression is not just about the speaker, but about the listener as well. The Supreme Court of Canada explained that freedom of expression “ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, but also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed.” This should be intuitive: the freedom to speak your beliefs on a deserted island is hardly freedom. Given our relational nature and intertwined lives, freedom always involves others. In Canada, we have the freedom not only to speak, but also to hear and be heard.

This is one of the arguments we are making before an Ontario court this June as an intervener in the Guelph and Area Right to Life v the City of Guelph case. The facts of this case are straightforward: the City took down three pro-life bus advertisements after Ad Standards issued opinions that they were inaccurate.

You may remember our interactions with Ad Standards in relation to our billboards and bus ads that said, “Canada has no abortion law.” In that instance, Ad Standards admitted the ads were true, but claimed there was a “general impression” of inaccuracy. Ad Standards has a long history of issuing befuddling and contradictory opinions regarding pro-life advertisements. This has been a thorn in the side of the pro-life movement because advertisers, including the City of Guelph, defer to these opinions even though Ad Standards has no legal authority.

The case coming up in June is between Guelph and Area Right to Life and the City of Guelph. There are also three secondary groups, including us, who are going to present legal arguments as interveners. These secondary groups have been granted the opportunity to speak to the case because the court recognizes that the result of this case could greatly impact others. This case involves interpreting our fundamental freedoms in the Charter and how they apply to advertising. Groups like We Need a Law are affected because we also use advertising to communicate the pro-life message.

As an intervener, we aren’t covering all of the arguments relevant to this case but are confining ourselves to one fundamental issue: the limitations of Ad Standards. In this case, the City of Guelph substantially relied on Ad Standards’ opinions to remove the pro-life advertisements. We argue this is constitutionally inappropriate for two main reasons.

First, Ad Standards does not consider the Charter in their opinions. Ad Standards is a private body issuing opinions generally on commercial advertisements. Their opinions are not subject to the Charter, nor do they even list freedom of expression as one of their values. They simply lack expertise in freedom of expression law. The City, however, as a government actor, has the obligation to ensure that freedom of expression is not unduly limited. They cannot abdicate that responsibility by relying on a private body.

Second, Ad Standards is unqualified to arbitrate the abortion debate. Canada is having an ongoing conversation about abortion with passionate advocates on either side. In order to give full meaning to freedom of expression, the City needs to ensure that one side of the debate is not silenced by the other. But Ad Standards does not have that obligation and there is no evidence that they are not being hijacked by activist-instigated complaints.

In short, we argue that the City’s substantial reliance on Ad Standards in this decision was unacceptable and renders this an unjustifiable infringement of freedom of expression.

We submitted our written arguments on May 17^th and we look forward to presenting oral arguments on June 15^th. We’re thrilled to be able to argue for the freedom to express the pro-life message and we’re especially grateful to Guelph and Area Right to Life for expressing that message in their city. Legal cases that involve protecting our freedom to speak don’t happen unless we are using our voice. We appreciate all the Canadians out there, including our supporters, who faithfully strive to do so.

We will keep you updated as the case progresses, and we encourage you to keep using your voice to faithfully witness in your community. Not just because you have the freedom to speak, but because the world around us has the freedom and the need to hear the message that every life is a gift and should be protected.

Repeatedly, we are asked for non-pro-life sources that confirm our claim that Canada has no abortion laws. Given the polarized nature of the debate on abortion, I understand and appreciate the desire to find support from multiple voices. And so, this request became the inspiration for a position paper titled Canada has no abortion laws.

In the first section of that paper, we go over what it means that Canada has no abortion laws – that abortions can be performed at any gestational age, and for any reason, without legal repercussion.

But the meat of the position paper is in the appendices. Appendix 1 shows our thorough attempt to find a law in any federal or provincial regulations. Then Appendix 2 includes quotes from a wide variety of journal articles or books that all say the same thing: Canada has no abortion law.

For example, Erin Nelson, a law professor, wrote in Canadian Health Law and Policy – the textbook recommended by my health law professor at Law School – “Canada is the sole Western nation without any criminal (or direct governmental) control over the provision of abortion services. Under current Canadian law, a woman may have an abortion at any time, for any reason.”

Peter Hogg, Canada’s leading constitutional law expert, lays out some history: “In Morgentaler, the restrictions on abortion in the Criminal Code were struck down as unduly depriving pregnant women of liberty or security of the person, contrary to section 7 of the Charter. In obiter, the Court added that a less restrictive abortion law could possibly be upheld. In 1990, a bill which would have implemented a less restrictive abortion law was introduced into Parliament. However that law was defeated on a tied vote in the Senate, and the divisive issue of abortion has never been revisited, either in terms of a new law, or even in terms of the formal repeal of the law that was declared unconstitutional in 1988. While neither the Charter nor the Court precluded a legislative response to the Morgentaler decision, the abortion issue is so politically explosive that it eludes democratic consensus.”

These are two legal experts in Canada. They are not pro-life or pro-abortion activists. They simply recognize that Canada has no abortion law.

There are also medical professionals who say the same thing, including Dr. Powell with the Women’s College Hospital in Toronto who writes for increased access to abortion. She wrote in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “Despite the fact that no law in Canada currently limits the provision of abortion services in publicly funded hospitals, abortion remains a discretionary procedure subject to local hospital policy and the availability of physicians.” She rightly points out that some hospitals refuse to do late-term abortions, but there is no law compelling them to do so.

In fact, this is a fact that was even touted by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada who had presentations titled “Canada: Proof that no country needs abortion laws.”

All of these sources and more are cited in our position paper. Our message that “Canada has no abortion laws” is accurate.

I think the reason people struggle to accept this is because of how extreme a position it is – Canada is the only democratic country in the world with no abortion law. Frankly, it’s unbelievable. But it is the sad truth.

“Canada has no abortion laws” proved to be a very controversial statement when we ran it on billboards in 2018. Abortion activists were quick to coordinate complaints to Advertising Standards Canada, a non-governmental advisory body for Canadian advertisers. In response, Ad Standards issued a report that our ads were “misleading and inaccurate” despite being “literally true.” While our billboards ran their course before the decision was finalized, this nonsensical decision did impact other groups hoping to use the ads.

In London, ON, a local group called ARPA Oxford purchased ads on city buses using the same message. The ads were pulled mid-contract when the London Transit Commission was advised by Ad Standards to do so. This unjust decision needed challenging.

We are thankful to announce that a legal settlement has now been reached with the London Transit Commission, and the bus ads are back in operation for 45 days!

Unexpectedly, these ads go back up on buses at exactly the same time that the city is facing conflict over pro-life flyers featuring abortion victim photography that have been distributed by the Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Those seeing the flyers may now also see our message, and be confronted with the truth that those discarded, mutilated pre-born children have absolutely no legal protection in Canada.

The re-running of these bus ads is a win-win situation. The pro-life movement is able to use their freedom to express their beliefs in London, and the city of London proves itself to be a place that does not shut down discussion on contentious issues, but respects the Charter guarantee of freedom of pro-life expression. The majority of Canadians still believe we have some law restricting abortion, at least in the later stages of pregnancy. Many Canadians support the status quo without knowing what they are actually supporting. We need to move past ignorance and apathy to understanding and emotion. The truth of these ads, that Canada has no abortion law, is fundamental to discussions around abortion in Canada.

This victory is also a reminder to continue to make use of the freedoms we have here in Canada. We have a Charter protected right to freedom of expression, and we need to keep insisting that pro-life expression be included in that freedom. We don’t know how much freedom we have until we use it, and we don’t know how long that freedom will last if we don’t commit to using it.

We live in a time when a lot of hard conversations need to happen. The conversation around when human rights begin is one of those issues that needs to be heard from all perspectives. It is our hope that all Canadians will continue to engage with the ongoing conversation about abortion.