{"id":39022,"date":"2026-04-22T17:36:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T21:36:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=39022"},"modified":"2026-05-01T09:30:20","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T13:30:20","slug":"bill-c-9-debate-in-the-senate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/legal\/2026\/04\/22\/bill-c-9-debate-in-the-senate\/","title":{"rendered":"Bill C-9: Debate in the Senate"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 6 of 7 in the series Bill C-9<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

UPDATED POST (MAY 1, 2026) \u2013 CONTINUED C-9 DEBATES IN SENATE DISCUSS GOOD FAITH RELIGIOUS DEFENCE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

During continued debates over Bill C-9<\/a> many Senators commented about how it could affect fundamental constitutionally<\/a> protected rights. This shows that collective advocacy is having an impact as Senators relayed concerns expressed to them and emphasized the need \u201cto reassure Canadians that their freedom of religious expression remains protected<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A key focus of the debate surrounded the removal of the good-faith religious defence<\/a> Bill C-9 creates a \u201cstructural change to Canada\u2019s hate propaganda framework<\/a>\u201d \u00a0impacting the balance between protecting Canadians from hatred and safeguarding freedom of religion and expression.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The good-faith religious defence was intended to provide clarity in both protecting fundamental freedoms and applying the law. Removing it creates a chilling effect that may infringe constitutionally protected freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026. by removing the good-faith religious expression defence, Bill C-9 introduces a greater degree of legal ambiguity. It leaves more to interpretation \u2014 by police officers deciding whether to investigate, by prosecutors determining whether to lay criminal charges and, ultimately, by judges tasked with interpreting the law \u2014 about where the line is drawn between lawful expression and criminal conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senators were also critical of the \u201cclarifying<\/a>\u201d provisions that were added to Bill C-9; \u00a0they are overly broad and do not provide “the same level of certainty, clarity or confidence<\/a>\u201d as the good-faith religious defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate also highlighted many important gaps:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Parliament should conduct a broader review of hate crimes in Canada, with the last study being 56 years ago. Trends in online hate and violence against women should be studied to assess whether current legislation is sufficient to address this type of violence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Bill C-9 should be reviewed from a constitutional lens to consider its impact on the Charter-protected rights of Canadians.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. While the intimidation and obstruction offences are important, they may be overbroad.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. More clarity is needed to justify the removal of the good-faith religious defence.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Given the many constitutional concerns, Senators urged further study of\u00a0 C-9 by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What You Can Do<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If you or your organization is concerned about Bill C-9, you may wish to call or write to a senator<\/a>. We will provide updates on Bill C-9 as it proceeds in the Senate here on our blog. If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team<\/a> by phone or email<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    UPDATED POST (APRIL 27, 2026) \u2013 ONGOING DEBATES ON BILL C-9 IN SENATE DURING SECOND READING<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bill C-9<\/a> was debated further<\/a> during its second reading<\/a> in the Senate on April 22, 2026. Supporters of Bill C-9 pointed to recent acts of hatred in Canada as a reason to introduce laws that address violence and discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Questions came up during the debate about Bill C-9. First was how Bill C-9 would work in practice. There is uncertainty about how police and crown prosecutors would enforce Bill C-9 if it became law. Supporters recommended that a clear national strategy and guidelines exist to support fair, consistent, and effective enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Another issue raised pertained to the requirement for the Attorney General\u2019s consent before certain charges can proceed. It was recommended that an independent body may be better to support judicial independence and public trust in these decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Further discussions on Bill C-9 included how to address hate-related offences more effectively, including pro-prosecution frameworks and offenders bearing the cost of prosecution of hate crimes when convicted. Debates also included how cultural sensitivity training is necessary and the effect of racial profiling when implementing Bill C-9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What You Can Do<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If you or your organization is concerned about Bill C-9, you may wish to call or write to a senator<\/a>. We will provide updates on Bill C-9 as it proceeds in the Senate here on our blog. If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team<\/a> by phone or email<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    ORIGINAL POST (APRIL 22, 2026) \u2013 BILL C-9 DEBATED IN SENATE DURING SECOND READING<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bill C-9<\/a> is currently at second reading<\/a> in the Senate. This is the stage when Senators debate bills and then usually refer them to a committee for close examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Good Faith Debate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    During second reading, the Bill’s supporters said it would strengthen and enhance<\/a> Canada\u2019s response to hate and intimidation and noted key changes made by the House of Commons, including: <\/p>\n\n\n\n