Bill C-9: What’s at Stake for Religious Expression?

Public discussion about Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, has intensified in recent days, including heated debate in the House of Commons. Some of this debate concerns the Bill itself, which has drawn criticism, including from civil liberties organizations. But more attention now centres on a proposed amendment that would remove the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code.

Although this defence is rarely invoked, it plays a meaningful role in ensuring that sincere expressions of religious belief are not mistakenly captured by hate-speech laws. In an effort to pass Bill C-9 as a whole, removing the defence has become a tool of political negotiation. Its proposed removal raises important questions for faith communities and for anyone concerned about free expression.

This overview explains what Bill C-9 would change, why the proposed amendment is generating concern, and what comes next in the legislative process.

What Bill C-9 Would Change

Bill C-9 proposes several changes to hate crimes in the Criminal Code. It creates four new offences:

• Wilfully promoting hatred by using certain symbols
• A new ‘add-on’ hate offence if convicted of any other offence and that was motivated by hate
• Intimidating a person from accessing certain places, including places of worship
• Intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s access to a certain place, including places of worship

Bill C-9 would also:

• Remove the requirement that the Attorney General consent to prosecuting hate propaganda offences
• Introduce a new statutory definition of hatred: “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”

Why These Proposed Changes Raise Concerns

Christians are called to love our neighbours as ourselves, speak graciously, account for any careless words we may speak, and to both love and pray for our enemies. These commitments should keep us attuned to concerns about hateful conduct such as the troubling rise in antisemitism (see, e.g. the Special Envoy for Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism Annual Report, Memory, Truth and Responsibility). But we also need to carefully consider how the criminal law already addresses hateful speech and whether new offences would be necessary or effective.

In this case, the Criminal Code already includes offences such as:

• Public incitement of hatred
• Wilful promotion of hatred
• Wilful promotion of antisemitism
• Mischief
• Mischief relating to religious property
• Intimidation
• Uttering threats
• Criminal harassment

Municipal bylaws also address conduct that, for example, impermissibly blocks roadways.

When existing offences exist that substantively address the concerns, the issue becomes a question of enforcement. If current tools aren’t effectively used, what promise is there that duplicative new ones will? In this case, no analysis is offered to identify how existing provisions are inadequate, how they could be improved, or why a lack of enforcement could be contributing to the problem.

Criminal offences must be drafted narrowly and precisely, particularly when Charter freedoms such as expression and religion are engaged. Courts have repeatedly emphasized and affirmed that free expression is essential to a free and democratic society.

In this case, Bill C-9’s proposed definition of ‘hatred’ is broader than the definition articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada and removes the term from its all-important context as found in those decisions.

Good Faith Religious Defence

The good faith religious defence is one of four defences specific to the crime of wilful promotion of hatred. It applies when:

“…in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

Other defences in the section include:

• A defence of truth
• Statements in the public interest for the public benefit that the speaker believed on reasonable grounds to be true
• Statements that point out hateful matters for the purposes of removal

Although the good faith defence is seldom argued, courts have been clear: it does not shield expression that otherwise meets the high legal threshold for wilful promotion of hatred. Instead, it ensures that the offence is not applied so broadly that it captures sincere efforts to communicate or interpret religious beliefs.

Recent statements made during Justice Committee hearings illustrate its importance. Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans were described as “passages with clear hatred” and that “there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful.”

But as the Supreme Court of Canada explained, a “biblical passage, in and of itself, cannot be taken as inspiring detestation and vilification”, which are the essential elements of hate offences (R v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 at para 199). The defence provides a necessary safeguard that prevents religious texts and sincere theological discussion from being criminalized.

Commentators across the political spectrum have raised similar concerns. As one op-ed sharply wrote:

It’s dangerous for politicians to believe they can use statutes to sanitize scripture they don’t even properly understand. Criminal law is the state’s most violent instrument. It should not be swung at the human soul.

The Bible is the most banned book in history, precisely because it is powerful and points to an authority beyond the reach of the government. A government that fears religious speech is not fighting extremism – it’s fighting competition.

CCCC’s Submissions

Before the proposed amendment grabbed headlines, CCCC  urged the Justice Committee to retain the defence. Our submission explained that biblical texts are not “clearly hateful”, and mutually exclusive truth claims or ideas that some may find offensive (Matt. 10:22; John 15:18-20; 1 Cor. 1:18) are a necessary part of living in a free and democratic society.

CCCC is also reaching out to the Minister of Justice and other elected officials to express our deep concern, seek clarification about the legal and constitutional bases of the proposed amendment, and advocate for the continued protection of good-faith religious expression.

What’s Next for Bill C-9?

Bill C-9 is currently before the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Committee last met on November 27, 2025; the meeting scheduled for December 4, 2025, was cancelled by the Committee Chair. As of December 8, no future meetings have been set.

The House of Commons is scheduled to sit until Friday, December 12, 2025 and will resume on  January 26, 2026. CCCC will continue to closely monitor developments and provide updates if new information becomes available.

If you are looking for more information, our friends at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) have drafted a backgrounder and key talking points about the good faith religious defence. If you decide to reach out to your local Member of Parliament (MP), we encourage you to take the opportunity to have a conversation: introduce yourself, your ministry, describe what you do in and for your community, and ask how you can pray for your MP. That will provide helpful context for any concerns you may have about Bill C-9 and the proposal to remove the good faith religious defence.