This marks a significant step toward Bill C-9 becoming law. It will now move to the Senate for further review and vote.

As we recently published, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report on Bill C-9 (“Report”) in the House of Commons, which made some changes to Bill C-9. However, the Report did not address one the biggest concerns raised by CCCC and other organizations, namely the removal of the good faith religious defence from the Criminal Code.

What changed during the Third Reading of Bill C-9?

There are several key differences between the first version of Bill C-9 and the version passed by the House of Commons.

1. Removes the good faith religious defence. This is one of the most problematic elements of Bill C-9, as the good faith religious defence provides clarity, ensures the offences remain constitutional, and preserves free expression.
2. Attorney General Approval Required. Prosecutors must still obtain the Attorney General’s consent before proceeding with charges. Initially, Bill C-9 removed this safeguard. Restoring it  is a welcome change as it adds an extra layer of oversight and helps ensure prosecutions serve the public interest.
3. Updates Definition of “hatred”. The updated definition uses language from the Supreme Court of Canada. The first version of Bill C-9 defined hatred as an ”emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”. The updated definition defines hatred as “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation”. This change better reflects a higher threshold of what is considered “hatred”.
4. Maintains Protection for Religious Property. The offence of mischief relating to religious property remains an offence in the Criminal Code. Earlier versions of Bill C-9 removed this offence from the Criminal Code.
5. Adds New “Clarification” on Expression. The third reading version of Bill C- 9 includes language that allows people to speak on religious, political, and scientific issues if they do not “willfully promote hatred”. The “clarification” provides that:

While this change may seem helpful, it does not offer the same protection of religious expression as the good-faith religious defence in the Criminal Code. The good faith religious defence expressly safeguards religious expression in ways this new wording does not.

What Has Not Changed?

There are several key elements that remain the same between the first version of Bill C-9 and the version passed by the House of Commons:

1. Create a New Hate Crime Offence. This remains problematic as courts are already required to consider hate as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
2. Create an offence of willful promotion of hatred through displays of terrorism and hate symbols.
3. Create an intimidation offence for restricting access to places that are used for worship or by an identifiable group for social, cultural, athletic and educational activities. The Criminal Code already addresses offences relating to the protection of places of worship, and many municipal by-laws further address access to specific places of worship.

CCCC recognizes that there must be limits to expression in a free and democratic society. Further, as a religious organization representing religious organizations, we are keenly aware of the offensive, derogatory and hurtful speech so often aimed at communities and individuals of faith and acknowledge it is necessary for the government to take seriously the acts of hate crimes and antisemitism that are noticeably on the rise. However, Bill C-9 raises deep and serious concerns about free expression. 

What Happens Next?

Bill C-9 will now be sent to the Senate with a message from the Clerk of the House requesting the Senate consider the bill. The Senate’s legislative process is similar to the House of Commons. If the Senate makes any changes to Bill C-9, it will need to be sent back to the House of Commons. The House of Commons and the Senate are both required to accept any amendments before Bill C-9 receives royal assent and becomes law.

What You Can Do

If you or your organization have concerns about the Bill, you can call or write to senators. Members who contact senators should check whether this activity will require registration under the Lobbying Act, RSC 1985 c 44, (4th Supp). For more information about lobbying registration thresholds, you can see CCCC general guidance in our Lobbying and PPDDA Topic Handbook.

We’re Here to Help

If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team by phone or email.

The post Bill C-9: Passes Third Reading with Key Changes appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Standing Committee Report

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights tabled its report on Bill C-9 to the House of Commons. The “report” was simply an amended version of the Bill. It did not address the many serious concerns raised in written submissions and oral testimony before the Committee.

The amended Bill restores the requirement for Attorney General consent before prosecutions under the section can proceed; however, it also deletes the good faith religious defence. This was – and is – an extremely problematic development, as expressed by CCCC and many other organizations.

Good Faith Religious Defence Must be Retained

According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the good faith religious defence helps ensure the offence remains constitutionally sound and does not infringe on Charter rights and freedoms.

Instead of preserving the good faith religious defence, the amended Bill C-9 purports to add a “clarification”, namely that:

For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) [wilful promotion of hatred] or (2.2) [wilful promotion of hatred – terrorism and hate symbols *new*] of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.

It is unclear how this clause provides any certainty.

The Criminal Code currently makes it an offence to “wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group”. The new wording does not limit the offence or create a defence. It simply repeats, in a different form, the offence. Canadians can communicate on educational, religious, political or scientific matters if they do not wilfully promote hatred.

CCCC Advocacy

CCCC has actively engaged on this issue. We made submissions to the Justice Committee, wrote directly to the Minister of Justice and sent a follow up letter to the Minister of Justice. As of this blog publication, no response has been forthcoming.

This lack of response is disappointing. It is particularly disappointing when, during debte in the Commons, some MPs suggested that Bill C-9 is not concerning to religious communities. Some further suggest that religious Canadians and organizations misunderstand the bill.

If that is the case, we would welcome the opportunity for a conversation with the Minister. We would appreciate clear answers, especially about why removing the good faith religious defence should not be of concern to all Canadians, and specifically Canadians of faith.

Next Steps

Bill C-9 will now be scheduled for third reading. Amendments can be proposed at this stage, and bills can be referred back to committee to reconsider certain clauses; however, third reading is more often a perfunctory step rather than substantive (re)consideration of the bill.

For Bill C-9, if voting at the report stage is any indication, it will pass third reading and move on to the Senate.

If you are concerned about the Bill and its potential impact on your organization, our friends at EFC have prepared a helpful, succinct summary on Bill C- 9 and offer recommendations for how to interact with your MP. As always, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact CCCC and be sure to subscribe to this blog for ongoing updates about Bill C-9.

The post Bill C-9: Moves Forward to Third Reading but Key Concerns Remain appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The Justice Committee (Committee) tabled its report (Report) on the proposed changes to Bill C-9 in the House of Commons on March 13, 2026. While some amendments to Bill C-9 have been introduced to promote clarity, CCCC remains concerned about the removal of the good faith religious defence in section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Report includes other changes to Bill C-9, including clarification of the term “hatred”. The amended definition now describes “hatred” as:

“an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

Further changes have also been made to the term “hate propaganda”, namely:

11.1 (1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.

(2) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2.1) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.”

As we have previously noted, these amendments may still face criticism for being “circular” and for failing to provide clarity or certainty. Further debates on Bill C-9 in the House of Commons are scheduled for March 23, 2026.  

Our friends at EFC have developed a suite of resources on Bill C-9, and are encouraging those concerned about the ongoing ambiguity in Bill C-9 to contact their local MP to advocate for “strong, clear language that protects religious expression” when debate resumes in the House of Commons next week.

UPDATE (March 12, 2026) – JUSTICE COMMITTEE VOTE ON BILL C-9

On March 11, 2026, the Justice Committee (Committee) met to vote on the final version of Bill C-9 before it proceeds to the report stage in the House of Commons. Following the recent order to eliminate ongoing debates on Bill C-9, the Chair of the Committee must report Bill C-9 back to the House of Commons by March 13, 2026.

A reprinted version of Bill C-9 will be released shortly, and CCCC will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available. Of particular concern, the Committee voted to repeal the good faith religious defence in section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

This development is deeply troubling. CCCC has previously written about the potential impact this change could have on Canadians’ constitutional rights. We encourage members to reach out to their local MPs about their concerns regarding Bill C-9 using the resources we have shared in our previous blogs.

UPDATE (March 11, 2026) – VOTE TO END DEBATE

On March 10, 2026, Members of Parliament voted in favour of ending ongoing debates on Bill C-9. The vote directed the Justice Committee (Committee) to conclude debate and proceed with the expedited consideration of Bill C-9 following the recent motion introduced by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

The motion was accompanied by debate in the House of Commons on the intended purpose of Bill C-9, as well as criticisms raised by various Members of Parliament. The Justice Committee is scheduled to consider Bill C-9 at its meeting on March 11, 2026. In accordance with the motion, the Chair of the Committee must report Bill C-9 back to the House of Commons by March 13, 2026.

While CCCC continues to support appropriate measures to address hatred and discrimination, the removal of the good-faith religious defence in Bill C-9 is concerning. We have followed up with the Minister of Justice to reiterate the importance of maintaining the good-faith religious defence. CCCC has also urged government to reopen debate on Bill C-9 and meaningfully engage with religious leaders before moving forward. CCCC will continue to monitor the progress of Bill C-9 and provide updates on this blog.

Motion to End Debate

On March 9, 2026, Members of Parliament will vote on a motion that would end the ongoing debates on Bill C-9. If adopted, the motion will eliminate ongoing discussion of concerns about Bill C-9 during the Justice Committee’s (“Committee’s”) review process.

The ongoing debate in the House of Commons has prompted the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to introduce a motion directing the Committee to:

1. Prioritize Bill C-9 above all other Committee business; ;
2. Resume section-by-section consideration of Bill C-9 at the next Committee meeting;
3. Cease further debates about Bill C-9. The Committee would immediately vote on each section and amendment.   The meeting would continue until the Committee completed its review of Bill C-9; and
4. Have the Chair of the Committee report Bill C-9 to the House of Commons within two sitting days after the review.

The motion establishes strict timelines for the Committee’s consideration of Bill C-9  in order to move it through the legislative process. The purpose of this Motion was to end ongoing debates and quickly allow for the passage of Bill C-9 into law.

CCCC has published our concerns about Bill C-9 in recent blogs and has written to the Justice Committee on the potential impact Bill C-9 would have on the freedom of expression. As Bill C-9 is currently drafted, CCCC recognizes that the term “hatred” is subject to broad interpretation. This may lead to inconsistent and subjective application if Bill C-9 became law. We are also concerned about proposals to remove the good-faith religious defence to hate speech allegations and intend to follow up with the Minister of Justice on our position.

Proposed Amendments to Bill C-9

Most recently, debate at the Committee has centered around proposed amendments, from both supporters and opponents of the Bill. Committee Members of the Justice Committee who are generally supportive of the legislation have proposed an amendment to the Bill.

Critics of this amendment see the reasoning as circular – your religious communication is not hate propaganda if it does not wilfully promote hatred – and don’t agree that it actually provides any more certainty. In response, then, those critics proposed further amendments (indicated in “strikethrough” text):

11.1(1) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.

(2) For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2.1) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.

C-9 Rally in Ottawa

The Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada is organizing a rally on Parliament Hill to raise awareness of the impact of Bill C-9 on Thursday March 12, 2026. Please visit ARPA’s website for further details.

We encourage members to reach out to their local MPs about their concerns regarding Bill C-9 using the resources we have shared in our previous blogs.

CCCC will write a follow up letter to the Minister of Justice about our concerns over Bill C-9, and we will be sure to share any important updates on the progress of Bill C-9 here on our blog.

The post Bill C-9: Motion to End Ongoing Debates appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

On January 26, 2026, the Justice Committee voted to pause further debate on Bill C-9 in order to focus on Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is a bill that would limit access to bail for individuals with a history of violent offences. The Justice Committee did not say when the discussions on Bill C-9 would continue, but some expect the pause to last at least two weeks.

In light of the concerns we have raised in our recent blogs, CCCC welcomes this temporary pause in the debates about Bill C-9. CCCC has been joined by charities, civil society groups, and associations in expressing deep concern that Bill C-9 could limit freedom of speech and does not clearly define important terms, like “hatred”. As currently written, Bill C-9 is subject to broad interpretation and unclear standards. We are also concerned about proposals to remove the good faith religious defence to hate speech allegations, and have written to the Minister of Justice directly.

CCCC is hopeful the shared concerns raised by religious organizations across Canada will continue to impact the future of this Bill. We encourage members to reach out to their local MPs about their concerns about Bill C-9 (see resources linked in prior blogs, below). CCCC will keep monitoring debates in the House of Commons and share any important updates about the progress of Bill C-9 here on our blog.

ORIGINAL POST

The Justice Committee will resume sitting in the House of Commons on January 26, 2026. Up for continued discussion will be Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act (“Bill C-9”). As CCCC shared earlier, important safeguards for good faith religious expression exist within the Criminal Code to protect sincerely held religious beliefs. Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code includes the good faith religious defence (“Good Faith Religious Defence”), one of four defences that relate to the crime of willful promotion of hatred in the Criminal Code. The Good Faith Religious Defence applies when:

if, 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.

On December 9, 2025, the Justice Committee voted to repeal the Good Faith Religious Defence from the Criminal Code. CCCC has advocated for the Justice Committee to maintain the Good Faith Religious Defence due to its narrow application and as a means to limit overbreadth or vagueness in offences.

CCCC recently wrote to the Minister of Justice, again urging the government to retain the Good Faith Religious Defence. While affirming the need for a clear definition of hatred to effectively combat discrimination and violence in our communities, we emphasized that sincerely held religious expression must not be criminalized. This protection promotes pluralism, religious diversity, and aligns with Supreme Court Jurisprudence.  CCCC called for further consultation with religious leaders and legal experts.  

In addition to concerns about the Good Faith Religious Defence, CCCC has called on the government to consider whether existing offences satisfy the intent of Bill C-9, reducing or even eliminating the need to create new offences. To avoid overreach and ambiguous laws, we recommended that Parliament rely on the definition of “hatred” defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, CCCC supported maintaining a requirement for Attorney General consent to prosecute expression offences. This serves as an important check against subjectivity and inconsistency. 

If you are concerned about the Bill and its potential impact on your organization, our friends at EFC have prepared a helpful, succinct summary on Bill C- 9 and offer recommendations for how to interact with your MP. We will continue to closely monitor developments and provide updates as new information becomes available.

The post Bill C-9: Impact on Religious Expression in Canada appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

According to a December 10 report from The Catholic Register, the Justice Committee met on December 9 and voted to repeal the good faith religious defence in section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

This development is deeply troubling—especially in light of earlier comments from the former Justice Committee Chair suggesting that certain passages of the Bible are “clearly hateful.” The good faith religious defence exists precisely to prevent such interpretations from becoming the basis of criminal prosecution. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained in R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697, the defence:

• helps “make the scope of wilful promotion of hatred more explicit,” signalling that genuine religious expression will not be swept into the offence; and
• ensures that “people engaging in borderline cases will not be subject to criminal liability for expressing unpopular views” (see R v Whatcott, 2021 ONSC 8077 at para. 30, citing Keegstra).

The defence is also a constitutional safeguard. As Keegstra notes, it reduces the danger that section 319(2) becomes “overbroad or unduly vague,” and draws a clearer line between the “rough and tumble of public debate” and genuinely hateful expression directed at identifiable groups.

Further, and importantly, the defence is narrowly applied. Courts have made clear that religious opinion cannot “be used with impunity as a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by s. 319” (R v Harding, at para. 47). It protects sincere religious expression—not hateful conduct disguised as such.

According to The Catholic Register, the government has stated that the amendment will “in no way, shape or form prevent a religious leader from reading their religious texts” and “will not criminalize faith.”

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General has committed to engaging “with religious leaders, legal experts, and civil-liberties organizations to reinforce” the government’s commitment to “ensuring that good-faith religious expression remains fully protected.”

If that is truly the government’s intention, it raises an obvious question: Why remove a defence designed precisely to protect good faith religious expression?

CCCC will continue to advocate against the removal of this important safeguard for all Canadians engaging in good-faith religious expression. If your organization is concerned about this development, we encourage you to request a meeting with your local MP to share about your organization, how this change will impact you, and why you are concerned. For more information see the section “What’s Next for Bill C-9?” in the original post below.

ORIGINAL POST

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.

The post Bill C-9: What’s at Stake for Religious Expression? appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

On October 31, the government confirmed that it

“is not considering amending the Income Tax Act to remove the advancement of religion as a qualifying charitable purpose, nor is it actively developing policy on this issue.”

The Minister’s confirmation aligns with everything CCCC has heard from our own sources and those shared with CCCC by other stakeholders.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue affirmed the government’s position in response to Petition e-6585. Below is the full response (emphasis added):

Response by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue

Signed by The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne

The Government of Canada recognizes the vital role that charities, including religious charities, play in delivering essential services to some of the most vulnerable in Canadian society. To support their important work, registered charities are granted significant tax benefits and privileges, including the ability to issue official donation receipts for the gifts they receive.

Under the Income Tax Act, an organization may only qualify for charitable registration where it is established exclusively for charitable purposes and devotes all its resources to achieving those purposes. The legal interpretation of “charitable purposes” has developed over time to include the relief of poverty, the advancement of religion, the advancement of education, and other purposes recognized as charitable, such as the promotion of health or the protection of the environment.

Today, Canada is home to over 85,000 registered charities, representing a wide variety of causes, beliefs, and interests. Registration as a charity does not indicate government endorsement of an organization’s specific goals or views. Instead, it confirms that the organization meets certain conditions, including that it is constituted and operated exclusively for charitable purposes. These benefits are extended to a broad range of organizations providing socially beneficial activities to the public, from educational institutions to religious organizations, as long as they meet the legal requirements for registration.

The Government of Canada is not considering amending the Income Tax Act to remove the advancement of religion as a qualifying charitable purpose, nor is it actively developing policy on this issue.

Want More?

For more information about CCCC advocacy work around recommendation 430, see CCCC Signs Lawyers Letters Concerning Charitable Status, CCCC Response to Troubling Recommendations on Charitable Status, Staying Informed About Charitable Status and CCCC 2025 Federal Pre-Budget Submissions.

The post Federal Government Will Not Remove Advancement of Religion appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

One stems from CCCC engagement with other lawyers specializing in charity law. The other stems from CCCC engagement with other faith-based organizations, in this case Christian Legal Fellowship. Each presents different perspectives and focus on different issues.

The first takes a broad look at several 2024 proposals that raise concerns about politicizing charitable status. It brings together lawyers with a wide range of views on the underlying policy issues but who collectively agree on the need for a neutral and principles-based framework for the administration of the charitable sector and the application of tax law. This letter was the subject of a recent national newspaper column.

The second focuses on concerns specific to recommendations in a 2024 report from a former House of Commons Finance Committee. It highlights that advancing religion is a social good that benefits the public and that the recommendations undermine religious diversity and state neutrality.

CCCC Advocacy

We’ve detailed the report, its recommendations, and our response in a past blog post, CCCC Responds to Troubling Recommendations on Charitable Status. In sum, two of the report’s 462 recommendations were particularly concerning:

• Recommendation 429: no longer provide charitable status for anti-abortion organizations
• Recommendation 430: amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of charity which would remove the privileged status of advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.

We outlined our concerns over politicizing charitable status in our 2025 federal pre-budget submissions that call for the government to retract the recommendations, and in prior government communications (Mandate letters; CCCC Open Letter; Proposed Income Tax Act amendments; Sealing industry).

In June 2025 we also urged the Finance Minister to reject policies that politicize charitable status and instead set a new direction for charities in Canada; one that implements evidence-based policy, protects diversity and upholds the independence of the charitable sector.

Your Advocacy

Perhaps you’re wondering how your organization can be involved? Your story can make a difference. When you share how your ministry is bringing hope, you’re helping protect the freedom to do that work. Help politicians and decision-makers understand your organization, your clients, your community, and the amazing work you do. We know (and research proves!) that you have an outsized, positive impact in your neighbourhoods and communities. What better way to demonstrate the importance of advancing religion as a charitable purpose than through stories of hope, joy and impact.

Tell Your Story!

We also know that you’re very busy on the front lines of ministry. So to help you easily and quickly tell your stories, we’ve got a set of communications resources to support and guide you in effective communications. They will help you discover your organization’s value proposition, tell your stories with integrity, and walk you step by step through story development and impact assessment.

As we continue to speak up about the importance of protecting charitable status from political influence, these two letters show that diverse stakeholders share overarching concerns. They also emphasize how important it is to keep tax policy fair and neutral. You can add your voice to this effort by telling your organization’s story of how you serve, who you help, and why it matters. Together, by sharing real stories of hope, impact, and service, we can help protect the independence and diversity of Canada’s charitable sector for years to come.

The post CCCC Signs Lawyers’ Letters Concerning Charitable Status appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

But a report from a former House of Commons Finance Committee shows that not everyone understands or acknowledges the significant place of religious charities in Canada.

The Issue

We’ve detailed the report and its recommendations in a past blog post, CCCC Responds to Troubling Recommendations on Charitable Status. In sum, two of the report’s 462 recommendations were particularly concerning:

• Recommendation 429: no longer provide charitable status for anti-abortion organizations
• Recommendation 430: amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of charity which would remove the privileged status of advancement of religion as a charitable purpose.

Our Response

In our blog post you’ll find the letter we sent to the Ministers outlining our concerns.

Our concerns and letter, as well as others, have been reflected in Christianity Today, Canadian Affairs, the Catholic Register, The B.C. Catholic, an interview on 100 Huntley Street, and our 2025 pre-budget submissions that call for the government to retract the recommendations.

Other organizations including The EFC, Christian Legal Fellowship, Canadian Interfaith Conversation (response to CIC), similarly called for the government to reject the recommendations and Imagine Canada expressed concern about politically motivated interference in the charitable sector.

The Committee’s recommendations are similar to past attempts to politicize charitable status. CCCC has written extensively to the government about politicizing charitable status. Here are just a few:

• Mandate letters; see also CCCC Open Letter
• Proposed Income Tax Act amendments
• Sealing industry

So what do we make of the recommendations?

The Context

It is important to know that these are not binding recommendations. No future government has any duty to implement them. Already Parliament prorogued, another round of pre-budget consultations opened and closed, and an election was called. It is also important to note that these recommendations impact the entire charitable sector, not just those directly targeted. Recommendation 429 politicizes charitable status, which, as we have said elsewhere, is a problem for everyone. Likewise, removing the “privileged status of advancement of religion” means any other charitable purpose can be removed on a whim.

Ongoing Response

Still, we understand the Report has left lingering concerns. Rest assured that CCCC is monitoring the issue, working with other national organizations, and will keep you updated.

If your organization wants to participate by speaking to issues related to your charitable purpose, you can. Since we’re in a federal election, special rules apply to charities that engage in election advocacy so you’ll need to be aware of the limits under public policy dialogue and development rules and Elections Act rules.

Our letters provide you with helpful summaries of the issues, consequences, and problems with the various proposals. We also have a one-page reference doc (that’s actually 1.5 pages!) outlining key issues with politicizing charitable status. And if you need further guidance in how to make use of all this information, our friends at The EFC have developed an Election 2025 brochure that may be helpful.

The post Staying Informed about Charitable Status appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Buried in the 300-page report are two deeply troubling recommendations about charitable status. Namely, that the government:

• No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations (#429);
• Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of charity which would remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose.

CCCC and others have already written to express concern and shock that the Committee would make such recommendations. And that the Committee would make the recommendations without consulting religious charities and without giving any rationale or reason.

With the political instability in our current federal government, it is uncertain whether any legislation will move forward, let alone a 2025 budget bill. Even so, it is essential to speak out about these recommendations.

Almost 40% of Canada’s registered charities advance religion. Religious congregations have a net-positive socio-economic contribution of $16.5 billion. Religion creates tangible community benefits for the public at large, develops and activates prosocial attitudes and behaviours (see “The Impact of the ‘Advancing Religion’ Charitable Sub-Sector in Canada“) . Religious communities are an essential part of a truly diverse, multicultural, and pluralistic society.

We highlight these attributes of religious charities and note key concerns with the Recommendations in our letter, below. We will keep advocating for our sector and representing faith-based charities. Your positive contributions to Canadians and the world are essential and we will work to maintain a positive legal environment in which your work can flourish.

The post CCCC Responds to Troubling Recommendations on Charitable Status appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Over many years CCCC has consistently and respectfully inquired about the status of the religion guidance in our government interactions. This article sets out and expands on those questions and concerns, identifying how this guidance gap has both a tangible and symbolic impact.

The tangible impact is seen in a 2023 Ontario court decision where, for example, the judge cited an “absence of benchmarks” to determine whether the CRA treated a Muslim charity fairly and in the same way it would have treated a Christian or Jewish charity. Guidance could have arguably provided those benchmarks for the court.

The symbolic impact of a guidance gap can be seen in the message, even if unintentional, that religious charities do not merit a published guidance document that speaks to their work. In contrast, publishing guidance is a way to recognize the significant contributions that religious groups make to our communities and affirm a positive message about faith-based charities in Canada.

Our hope is that this article inspires and prompts discussion around the path forward, and how we can collectively advocate for recognition and support of religious charities’ essential contributions.

The post Why CCCC is Advocating for Advancement of Religion Guidance appeared first on CCCC Blogs.