Canada’s Senate Passes Bill C‑9, Sparking Debate Over Religious Expression and Hate Speech Laws

Newsroom (08/06/2026  Gaudium Press) On June 5, the Canadian Senate passed Bill C‑9 by a vote of 45 to 13, advancing legislation that would significantly reshape how hate speech laws intersect with religious expression. The bill now returns to the House of Commons for ratification of Senate amendments before it can receive royal assent and become law.

At the heart of the reform is the removal of section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code—a provision that previously allowed individuals accused of hate propaganda to defend themselves by demonstrating that their statements were made in good faith and based on religious texts or beliefs. Its elimination marks a notable shift in Canadian law and has triggered strong reactions from religious leaders, legal observers, and political figures.

Legal Shift: Removal of the Religious Defence

The now-removed provision had long served as a safeguard for faith-based expression, allowing defendants to argue that their statements reflected sincerely held religious convictions rather than intent to promote hatred. With Bill C‑9, that defence is no longer available.

Canada’s existing hate speech framework remains intact. Under section 319(1) and (2), it is already illegal to publicly incite hatred or wilfully promote hatred against identifiable groups, with penalties of up to two years in prison. Section 319(2.1) further criminalizes the wilful promotion of antisemitism, including Holocaust denial.

What changes is the legal recourse available to those charged. Without the religious defence, individuals may face greater legal exposure if their statements—even when rooted in scripture—are interpreted by courts as meeting the high threshold of hatred defined by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court has clarified that hatred involves extreme expressions such as vilification and detestation that go beyond mere offence. It includes rhetoric portraying groups as dangerous, subhuman, or inherently harmful to society.

Biblical Teachings in the Spotlight

The implications of Bill C‑9 have drawn particular attention to traditional Christian teachings on issues such as sexuality and marriage. Critics argue that passages from sacred texts, depending on context and delivery, could now be scrutinized under hate speech laws.

Legal experts note that simply reading scripture is unlikely to result in prosecution. However, context matters: if statements are perceived as encouraging hatred or extreme hostility toward a protected group, they may fall within the scope of criminal law.

An often-cited example is Leviticus 20:13. On its own, reading the passage may not meet the legal threshold for hate speech. Yet if accompanied by language that vilifies or dehumanizes a group, it could potentially be interpreted differently in court.

Strong Opposition from Religious Leaders

The removal of the religious defence has prompted vocal opposition from Christian advocacy groups and Catholic leaders.

Jeff Gunnarson, national president of the Campaign Life Coalition, called the Senate vote “a dark day for religious freedom and freedom of expression in Canada.” He warned that biblical teachings are increasingly being labeled as hateful and pledged continued public proclamation of religious beliefs.

Concerns extend beyond advocacy groups. Cardinal Frank Leo, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Toronto, had urged senators to amend the bill, emphasizing the need to combat hate while preserving constitutional protections for religious liberty. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops also criticized the reform and called for the religious exception to be reinstated.

Political Reservations at the Provincial Level

The debate has also reached provincial leadership. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith expressed concern about potential implications for religious communities, stating she did not want to see authorities “monitoring” religious gatherings or expressions of faith in her province.

Such statements highlight broader uncertainties about how the law will be interpreted and enforced, particularly in settings such as churches, public demonstrations, and online discourse.

Supporters Downplay Impact

Proponents of Bill C‑9 maintain that fears about restricting religious freedom are overstated. They argue the reform is narrowly focused on addressing genuine instances of hate speech and incitement to violence, not on suppressing religious belief or practice.

Supporters emphasize that the Bible and other sacred texts are not banned, and individuals remain free to practice and express their faith. The key distinction, they say, is between expressing beliefs and promoting hatred against identifiable groups.

A Broader Cultural and Legal Question

Despite assurances, the removal of a longstanding legal defence has raised deeper questions about the evolving balance between free expression, religious liberty, and protections against hate speech in Canada.

For many observers, the debate surrounding Bill C‑9 reflects a wider tension across Western democracies: how to reconcile traditional religious teachings with changing social norms and legal standards.

As the bill returns to the House of Commons and moves closer to becoming law, its real-world impact remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the conversation it has sparked—about where the line is drawn between belief and harm—is far from over.

• Raju Hasmukh with files from Infocatholica