Technology entrepreneur Yanik Guillemette calls for reducing barriers to innovation as Canada debates Bill C-9

Article content

The risk of a “chilling effect” on innovation

Article content

Yanik Guillemette also highlights the risk of a chilling effect — a deterrent effect in which individuals, companies, or platforms avoid certain discussions, content, or products not because they are illegal, but because the legal framework becomes too uncertain.

Article content

According to him, this phenomenon can become particularly problematic in the digital economy, where innovation often depends on speed of deployment, iteration, and the ability to facilitate complex exchanges online.

Article content

“When the regulatory climate pushes people to self-censor as a precaution, the consequences go far beyond politics. It can slow product creation, distort platform moderation decisions, discourage technology investment, and even reduce the willingness to launch new ventures in Canada,” he said.

Article content

Submissions presented to the parliamentary committee also raised concerns about the risk of subjective application. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supported the general intent of the bill while requesting more precise drafting to avoid “subjective or inconsistent” enforcement, particularly regarding symbols and the locations covered by the new offences.

Article content

Article content

International examples raising concerns

Article content

Yanik Guillemette’s analysis notes that several Western democracies are currently attempting to more aggressively regulate certain forms of hateful or offensive expression, with outcomes that have sometimes sparked intense debate regarding civil liberties.

Article content

In the United Kingdom, a debate in the House of Lords cited police figures suggesting that authorities now carry out more than 30 arrests per day for offensive online communications, representing a 121% increase since 2017. Additionally, following the riots of summer 2024, the House of Commons Library reported that as of August 30, 2024, 1,280 individuals had been arrested and 796 charged. These examples are not directly comparable to Canada’s legal framework but illustrate how rapidly the criminal regulation of speech can become a major societal issue.

Article content

In Germany, authorities have reported a sharp increase in politically motivated offences. The official summary of the 2024 Report on the Protection of the Constitution indicates that the Federal Criminal Police Office recorded 84,172 politically motivated offences, including 31,229 propaganda offences. Freedom House also reported that the BKA documented 8,011 online posts meeting the criminal definition of hate speech in 2023, representing a significant increase compared with previous years.

Article content

Article content

According to Yanik Guillemette, these examples demonstrate that even when the stated objective is legitimate, governments must remain cautious when expanding the use of criminal law in areas related to expression.

Article content

A fragile economy needs flexibility, not new obstacles

Article content

In his analysis, Yanik Guillemette argues that the debate surrounding Bill C-9 should not be separated from the current economic context. Canada is facing slower growth, layoffs, pressure on investment, and increased global competition for talent and innovative companies. According to Reuters, the employment decline recorded in February 2026 represents the largest drop in nearly 17 years outside of pandemic-affected months.

Article content

“In a slowing economy, every new regulatory grey zone acts as an additional brake. Of course we must combat hatred and violence, but we must also avoid turning Canada into a jurisdiction where legal uncertainty discourages builders, creators, and investors,” he said.

Article content

For a rigorous, clear debate compatible with innovation

Article content

The analysis published by Yanik Guillemette does not challenge the need to protect communities targeted by hatred or intimidation. Instead, it calls for a more rigorous public discussion about the real scope of the legislation, the precision of its definitions, and its indirect consequences for freedom of expression, entrepreneurship, and innovation.