SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
DONATE

Why It Is Critical for Freedom in Canada That Bill C-9 Not Be Passed

Jan 14, 2026 | Freedom Forum, News Releases & Reports

Barry W. Bussey[1]


January 14, 2026

Executive Summary

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, sparked significant debate in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, with witnesses and external observers raising profound concerns about the Bill’s impact on fundamental Canadian freedoms. Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton and member of the Committee, stated on November 27, 2025, that “the government wading into this territory itself will actually send a chill that will make people less able to speak their mind.” This concern is amplified by the government’s controversial decision, made in a deal with the Bloc Québécois, to remove the long-standing “good-faith” religious exemption from hate speech laws. Journalist John Ivison, initially questioned opposition to the bill, publicly shifted his stance, labeling this deal a “Faustian bargain” that risks “criminalizing faith” (Ivison, December 11, 2025). Barry W. Bussey further contextualizes this as “yet another religious incident reverberating across the country,” likening the government’s actions to a “legal revolution against the accommodation of religious practices and beliefs” reminiscent of historical persecutions (Bussey, December 8, 2025).

This brief analyzes evidence from committee transcripts and public commentary, highlighting that Bill C-9’s lowered threshold for the definition of “hate speech,” the removal of key safeguards like the prior Attorney General consent before prosecution, and the elimination of the religious exemption “good faith” defense, pose an unacceptable threat to free expression, religious freedom, and assembly in Canada. This constitutes an unnecessary and dangerous overreach of state power that should lead to the bill’s rejection, in favour of rigorous enforcement of existing laws to combat genuine hate without infringing on constitutional rights.

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examined Bill C-9 amid a concerning surge in hate crimes across Canada, with police reporting to the Committee that there were over 2,200 incidents in 2025 alone (evidence from October 9, 2025). While the bill ostensibly aims to strengthen protections against hate by introducing new offences for intimidation, obstruction, and the display of hate symbols, its measures also redefine “hatred” by lowering the threshold of what constitutes as “hate” and removes the requirement for Attorney General consent for prosecutions. Crucially, the legislative process has seen the controversial introduction of an amendment to eliminate the “good-faith” religious exemption from hate speech laws, a move secured by a deal between the Liberal government and the Bloc Québécois (Ivison, December 11, 2025; Lawton, December 2, 2025; Taylor, December 2 & 4, 2025; Van Geyn, December 4, 2025; NP View, December 6, 2025).

As revealed in committee testimony and critically observed by commentators, these proposed changes risk expanding state power in ways that could profoundly suppress legitimate debate, dissent, and religious expression. Bruce Pardy, on October 23, 2025, warned of “anarcho-tyranny,” describing a “government dysfunction” that is “ruthlessly oppressive in punishing minor transgressions” while failing to address serious crime. Barry W. Bussey, writing on December 8, 2025, frames this moment as a “religious incident reverberating across the country,” warning that Bill C-9 “has the potential to make the federal government’s 1940 actions against the JWs seem like child’s play.” This brief synthesizes the evidence from committee hearings and external analyses, demonstrating why Bill C-9, particularly in its amended form, poses an unprecedented threat to freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It argues that the bill’s fundamental flaws and the troubling manner of its passage—undermining a crucial constitutional safeguard—outweigh any purported benefits, calling for its outright rejection in favour of targeted, Charter-compliant reforms.

Summary of the Evidence and Evolving Debate

The committee hearings revealed a clear divide between proponents and critics of Bill C-9, a division that intensified significantly with the introduction of the amendment concerning religious exemptions.

  • Arguments in Favor of Bill C-9: Proponents, including DeRico Symonds (African Nova Scotian Justice Institute) and Nicole Chapdelaine (Edmonton Police Service), argued that the bill offers necessary updates to existing laws to address escalating hate. Symonds, on November 6, 2025, stated, “Bill C-9…acknowledges the rise in hate crimes and the need for stronger legal protection,” while also calling for further inclusion of anti-Black hate symbols like the noose and KKK insignia. Chapdelaine, on October 30, 2025, highlighted the bill’s potential to standardize hate crime reporting and improve enforcement efficiency, noting that “a single codified definition would align law enforcement…enabling a coordinated and effective national response.” Brandon Silver (Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights), on October 9, 2025, supported the bill for its alignment with international obligations and its deterrent effect against hate, particularly through measures targeting symbols and intimidation, stating, “These hate symbols represent violence and are anti-democratic in nature.” Minister of Canadian Heritage, Marc Miller, and Liberal MP Anthony Housefather have publicly supported the removal of the religious exemption, arguing that “nobody should be committing a hate crime in the name of religion” (Taylor, December 2, 2025).
  • Arguments Against Bill C-9 and the Religious Exemption: Critics raised alarms about overreach and the chilling effect on expression. Christine Van Geyn (Canadian Constitution Foundation) warned on November 6, 2025, that “Bill C-9 will criminalize expression that should enjoy constitutional protection,” arguing it “expands the criminal law into the realm of expression in ways that risk unjustified violations of the charter right to free expression.” Anaïs Bussières McNicoll (Canadian Civil Liberties Association) and Ryan Alford highlighted constitutional vulnerabilities, particularly concerning the bill’s vague language. John Sikkema (Association for Reformed Political Action Canada) and Vijaykumar Jain (Canadian Hindus for Harmony) expressed concerns about the bill’s impact on religious freedoms, with Jain specifically critiquing the bill’s handling of symbols like the swastika.

The debate took a critical turn with the revelation of a deal between the Liberal government and the Bloc Québécois to remove the Criminal Code’s “good-faith” religious exemption (Lawton, December 2, 2025; Taylor, December 2 & 4, 2025). This move, initially championed by the Bloc for years, aims to make it a crime to promote hatred or antisemitism, even if based on sincere religious belief (Taylor, December 2, 2025). Conservative MP Roman Baber, whose arguments prompted journalist John Ivison to change his mind about the bill, vehemently opposed this, stating, “When we start going down the road of criminalizing more and more speech, we kill free speech” (Ivison, December 11, 2025). Ivison ultimately described the government’s compromise as a “Faustian bargain” (Ivison, December 11, 2025). This position has garnered broad opposition from various faith groups, including Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, and the Canadian Council of Imams, all of whom warn of the severe implications for religious freedom and discourse (Taylor, December 4, 2025). Bussey further warns that this specific aspect of Bill C-9, particularly given remarks by Minister Miller, indicates an “attempt to criminalize religious views that the government finds objectionable,” as part of a developing process that diminishes “the accommodation of religious practices and beliefs” (Bussey, December 8, 2025).

The evidence thus portrays a legislative process fraught with tension, where the government’s pursuit of stronger anti-hate measures appears to be compromising fundamental Charter-protected freedoms, particularly religious expression.

Section 2: Analysis of Key Issues

The evidence highlights several critical issues with Bill C-9, including its impact on free expression, the removal of safeguards, and particularly, the profound threat posed by the elimination of the good-faith religious exemption.

  • Freedom of Expression and the Redefinition of Hate: The bill’s definition of “hatred” as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike” significantly departs from Supreme Court jurisprudence in R v. Keegstra and Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, which require an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature” associated with vilification and detestation. As Ryan Alford testified on October 23, 2025, this “lowers the threshold, risking unconstitutional restrictions on speech.” He further warned of the dangerous potential for “U.K.-style tweet policing in Canada,” where individuals are arrested for online comments deemed an “affront to the dignity of individuals but is not ‘detestation or vilification'” (October 23, 2025). Christine Van Geyn reinforced this on November 6, 2025, noting that such a diluted standard “expands criminal liability in ways that threaten legitimate expression, dissent and protest.” The vagueness invites subjective interpretation and risks a chilling effect, where Canadians self-censor to avoid potential prosecution.
  • The Assault on Religious Freedom: Removal of the Good-Faith Defense: The most contentious element of Bill C-9, and the primary driver of intensified opposition, is the proposed removal of the long-standing religious exemption from sections 319(2) and 319(2.1) of the Criminal Code. This exemption protects individuals who express, “in good faith, an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text” from charges of wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism (Lawton, December 2, 2025; Brean, December 6, 2025).
    • Constitutional Necessity: This is not a mere technicality. As Andrew Lawton underscored on December 2, 2025, the Supreme Court “has recognized this defence as necessary to keep Canada’s hate-speech laws constitutional, understanding how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are.” Christine Van Geyn further explained that in R v. Keegstra, the Supreme Court upheld the hate speech prohibition “in part because of ‘the presence of the Sec. 319(3) defences.’… Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses” (Van Geyn, December 4, 2025). Chief Justice Dickson noted in Keegstra,

These defences are hence intended to aid in making the scope of the wilful promotion of hatred more explicit; individuals engaging in the type of expression described are thus given a strong signal that their activity will not be swept into the ambit of the offence. The result is that what danger exists that s. 319(2) is overbroad or unduly vague, or will be perceived as such, is significantly reduced. To the extent that s. 319(3) provides justification for the accused who would otherwise fall within the parameters of the offence of wilfully promoting hatred, it reflects a commitment to the idea that an individual’s freedom of expression will not be curtailed in borderline cases.  The line between the rough and tumble of public debate and brutal, negative and damaging attacks upon identifiable groups is hence adjusted in order to give some leeway to freedom of expression. (R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697.)

  • Historical Context and Warnings: Barry W. Bussey provides a stark historical lens, reminding the committee of the federal government’s 1940 ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses, which led to “beatings, mob action, police persecution, as well as state persecution” (Bussey, December 8, 2025). He quotes Justice Ivan Rand’s 1953 Saumur decision, where “a religious incident reverberates from one end of this country to the other, and there is nothing to which the ‘body politic of the Dominion’ is more sensitive” (Bussey, December 8, 2025). Bussey warns that Bill C-9 “has the potential to make the federal government’s 1940 actions against the JWs seem like child’s play,” suggesting a dangerous precedent for state overreach into matters of faith. He connects this to a broader “legal revolution against the accommodation of religious practices and beliefs” since 2004, citing government restrictions on Canada Summer Jobs grants, healthcare mandates, and efforts to remove charitable status from religious organizations (Bussey, December 8, 2025).
  • Politicization of Religious Texts: The debate has seen a concerning politicization of religious texts. On November 27, 2025, the Chair (Marc Miller) questioned Derek Ross on “passages with clear hatred” in the Bible and the Torah, suggesting they “should not be used to invoke or be a defence.” Ross countered, “I don’t know that I would agree with the characterization that passages are categorically hateful… The good-faith requirement has been strictly enforced” (October 23, 2025). This interaction, and Miller’s subsequent public comments about not committing “hate crime in the name of religion” (Taylor, December 2, 2025), have drawn sharp criticism. Van Geyn highlighted the danger of politicians believing “they can use statutes to sanitize scripture they don’t even properly understand” (Van Geyn, December 4, 2025).
  • Roman Baber’s Arguments: Conservative MP Roman Baber argued emphatically that the religious defense “has never been used to acquit a defendant accused of public incitement of hatred” (Ivison, December 11, 2025). He challenged the premise for removal, stating that the problem the Bloc sought to solve “does not exist” in the Criminal Code (Ivison, December 11, 2025). Baber emphasized that the religious defense only applies to wilful promotion of hatred and antisemitism under section 319(2) and 319(2.1), but not to advocating genocide under section 318 or public incitement under section 319(1). This means that calls for violence, such as those made by Imam Adil Charkaoui, as constantly referred to by the Blocs Quebecois, were already prosecutable under other sections, and the decision not to charge Charkaoui “turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence” (Ivison, December 11, 2025; Van Geyn, December 4, 2025). As such, removing the exemption is an “unnecessary war on religious freedom” as noted by Lawton (Lawton, December 2, 2025), risking the criminalization of “sincerely held religious doctrines” (Lawton, December 2, 2025).
  • Chilling Effect on Faith Communities: The removal of this defense, particularly when combined with the simultaneous removal of Attorney General consent, creates a severe “chilling effect” on religious discourse and education. Lawton warned that “people of faith could be imprisoned for up to two years for expressing deeply held religious convictions that the government finds offensive” (Lawton, December 2, 2025). Religious leaders and organizations, including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Council of Imams, have voiced grave concerns, fearing “uncertainty for faith communities” and that “good-faith” religious teachings “could be misinterpreted as hate speech” (Taylor, December 4, 2025). The Imams stated their concern is “not with criminalizing genuine hate speech… Rather, it is with the risk that religious texts…could be misinterpreted according to evolving societal norms, leaving enforcement at the discretion of the Crown and law enforcement agencies” (Taylor, December 2, 2025).
  • Removal of Attorney General Consent: Critics, including Anaïs Bussières McNicoll and Christine Van Geyn, argued on November 6, 2025, that eliminating Attorney General consent invites arbitrary or politically motivated prosecutions: “Removing [AG consent] invites arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement.” This safeguard has long ensured that “charges are not frivolous” and acts as “an important safeguard against vexatious and frivolous misuse of the hate propaganda provisions” (Mark Sandler, December 11, 2025). Its removal, particularly in conjunction with the diluted hate definition and the lack of religious exemption, creates a legal environment ripe for abuse and potentially targets innocent individuals, as Roman Baber highlighted.
  • Duplication and Overreach in New Offences: The bill’s new intimidation and obstruction offences largely duplicate existing Criminal Code provisions (e.g., sections 423.1 and 264), rendering them “largely redundant” (NP View, December 6, 2025). Nusaiba Al-Azem warned on October 9, 2025, that vague language concerning symbols that “nearly resemble” those of terrorist entities “would criminalize confusion” and could be misused against peaceful protesters, especially within racialized communities.

Section 3: Why Bill C-9 Threatens Freedom in Canada

Bill C-9, particularly with the proposed amendments, constitutes a direct and dangerous assault on fundamental Canadian freedoms. Its combined elements—a diluted definition of hate, the removal of prosecutorial safeguards, and the elimination of religious exemptions—create a legislative framework highly susceptible to abuse and overreach.

The redefined “hatred” lowers the bar for prosecution, potentially criminalizing legitimate debate and dissenting opinions. As Ryan Alford and Bruce Pardy warned (October 23, 2025), this vagueness invites subjective enforcement and significantly expands the scope of what constitutes criminal speech. Alford cautioned that this could lead to “U.K.-style tweet policing” where individuals face scrutiny for online comments that are deemed offensive but do not incite violence.

The elimination of the “good-faith” religious exemption is a particularly egregious assault on religious freedom. As Andrew Lawton asserted on December 2, 2025, the Liberals are waging an “unnecessary war on religious freedom,” exposing “people of faith to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” This move directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s recognition of this defense as essential for the constitutionality of hate speech laws (Lawton, December 2, 2025; Van Geyn, December 4, 2025).

Christine Van Geyn eloquently articulated the danger: “If the state begins parsing Psalms or Hadiths line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all” (Van Geyn, December 4, 2025). The Canadian Council of Imams also voiced concern that removing the provision risks “that religious texts, which are not inherently hateful, could be misinterpreted according to evolving societal norms, leaving enforcement at the discretion of the Crown and law enforcement agencies, and thus creating a chilling effect on religious education, discourse and worship” (Taylor, December 2, 2025). This norrisks criminalizing faith itself, as argued by Van Geyn, who stated, “A government that fears religious speech is not fighting extremism — it’s fighting competition” (Van Geyn, December 4, 2025).

The removal of Attorney General consent further exacerbates these risks, enabling politically motivated charges and removing a critical safeguard against frivolous prosecutions. As Roman Baber pointed out (November 27, 2025, and highlighted in Ivison, December 11, 2025), this could “weaponize” the legal process against “everyday Canadians” for expressing sincerely held beliefs, potentially dragging them through costly and reputation-damaging legal battles even if charges are eventually dropped. This creates an environment of fear and self-censorship, eroding the marketplace of ideas vital for a healthy democracy.

Furthermore, critics consistently noted that the bill’s focus on expanding speech-related offenses distracts from the government’s failure to enforce existing laws against actual violence and incitement. Andrew Lawton highlighted that “Genocide advocacy is already criminalized but not enforced” (Lawton, December 2, 2025). The controversial case of Imam Adil Charkaoui, where prosecutors declined to charge despite calls for the “extermination of Zionist aggressors,” was attributed to “cowardice within the Quebec Crown prosecution service,” not a flaw in the religious defense (NP View, December 6, 2025). This suggests an “enforcement problem,” not a legislative gap (Lawton, November 27, 2025). The NP View piece succinctly summarized this, arguing, “The Bloc’s proposed changes take the bill from merely redundant to an extremely dangerous assault on religious freedom” and that the Liberals “look to criminalize faith, while allowing hate to fester” (NP View, December 6, 2025).

Ultimately, Bill C-9, particularly in its amended form, risks transforming Canada’s legal landscape into one where the state wields excessive power over thought and expression. It prioritizes political maneuvering (the “Faustian bargain” with the Bloc) over rigorous adherence to Charter principles, thereby undermining the very essence of a free and democratic society. As Bussey concludes, “The revolution in Canadian society against traditional religious views on ‘cultural’ issues is evident in public institutions… For many Christian groups, the recent debates on Bill C-9 have a cultural and historical resonance. They have seen this playbook before” (Bussey, December 8, 2025).

Recommendations

Bill C-9 should not proceed in its current form. Parliament must prioritize the robust enforcement of existing laws, such as sections 318 (advocating genocide) and 319 (incitement and wilful promotion of hatred), by providing better training and resources for law enforcement, rather than enacting redundant or problematic legislation. Key amendments, if the bill is to proceed at all, must include:

  1. Restoring Attorney General Consent: This vital safeguard against vexatious or politically motivated prosecutions must remain. At minimum, it should be retained for private prosecutions, as Mark Sandler suggested.
  2. Reinstating and Clarifying the Good-Faith Religious Exemption: As Andrew Lawton and Roman Baber argued, this exemption is constitutionally necessary and does not protect incitement to violence. Its removal is an unwarranted attack on religious freedom and must be reversed.
  3. Refining the Definition of Hate: The definition must precisely align with Supreme Court jurisprudence (e.g., Keegstra and Whatcott), including the “intense and extreme nature” and “detestation and vilification” standard, to prevent unconstitutional overreach and chilling effects on speech.
  4. Clarifying Symbol Provisions: Ambiguous language like “nearly resembles” must be removed or precisely defined to protect cultural and religious expression (e.g., Hindu and Jain symbols) and prevent criminalizing confusion.
  5. Focus on Enforcement, Not Expanding Criminality: The government should address the “enforcement problem” (Lawton, November 27, 2025) by strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new, potentially duplicative, and dangerous offences.

Further broad and genuine consultations with diverse stakeholders, especially faith communities and civil liberties groups, are essential to ensure any legislation effectively combats hate without infringing on constitutional rights.

Conclusion
The debate on Bill C-9 reveals deep tensions between combating hate and preserving freedoms. This Bill risks unconstitutional restrictions on speech. While the bill’s intent to address rising hate is understandable, its current form, particularly with the removal of the religious exemption, represents an egregious overreach. This “assault on freedom of expression and religious freedom cannot stand” (Lawton, December 2, 2025). Rejecting this bill and focusing on targeted, Charter-compliant reforms will better protect vulnerable groups without compromising the fundamental rights and democratic principles that define Canada, ensuring a society where genuine hate is addressed effectively and all voices are heard and protected.

References

[1] Written with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence in reviewing the transcripts, articles, and helping draft this brief.

Recent Podcasts