MPs spar over a new Bill C-9 amendment, as Conservatives warn it adds confusion while Liberals say it clarifies protections for religious expression.
Newsroom (25/02/2026 Gaudium Press ) A proposed amendment to Bill C-9—the federal government’s Combatting Hate Act—has reignited a fierce debate over the boundaries of religious expression and the scope of Canada’s hate speech laws. While Liberal MPs insist the adjustment introduces much-needed clarification, Conservatives argue it creates deeper legal ambiguity rather than reassurance.
The concerns surfaced during a February 23 meeting of the House of Commons justice and human rights committee, where Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio introduced what she called “clarifying language” to the legislation. The amendment, she said, was a “sincere” response to worries voiced by faith leaders, legal experts, and civil society groups over the bill’s implications for freedom of religion and expression.
Opposition to the bill materialized upon its introduction in September 2025. It mounted substantially, including from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and Toronto’s Cardinal Frank Leo, once the government agreed to a Bloc Québécois amendment that repeals the religious speech defence from Section 319 of the Criminal Code.
Under the new amendment, the legislation would specify that “nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) 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 willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.”
This language mirrors prior judicial interpretations that genuine discussion does not equate to willful hatred. However, the revision also extends to subsection 319(2.1), which targets those who willfully promote anti-Semitism through statements that condone, deny, or downplay the Holocaust.
Lattanzio defended the government’s approach, arguing the amendment neither adds nor removes legal safeguards. Instead, she described it as a “clause for greater certainty,” meant to reflect what courts have long recognized: that legitimate religious, academic, or political debate does not fall under the scope of hate promotion.
“The removal of the religious speech defence,” she said, “does not lower the high bar required for a willful promotion of hatred charge.”
But Conservative MP Andrew Lawton rejected that interpretation, accusing the government of papering over fundamental flaws. “This amendment does not actually seek to bolster any protections,” he said. “It simply aims to say that none of this was at issue in the first place.” According to Lawton, if the amendment changes nothing, it cannot possibly reassure those who fear a future where citing scripture might trigger prosecution.
He called the proposal “circular reasoning at best” and argued it preserves an opening for hate speech charges to be laid against individuals quoting religious texts. Lawton urged the committee to consider repealing the “if they do not willfully promote” clause, which he sees as a limiting condition undermining genuine protections.
The committee’s discussion was suspended before Lawton’s counter-proposal could be debated in full. Members are scheduled to reconvene on February 25 to continue deliberations.
Outside the formal proceedings, Bloc Québécois MP Rheal Fortin remained silent, leaving unclear whether his party supports Lattanzio’s amendment. Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet had earlier stated that repealing the religious exemption was the Bloc’s condition for backing the bill at third reading, signaling limited flexibility within the minority Parliament.
Beyond the contested speech provisions, Bill C-9 carries several high-profile measures. It would criminalize intimidation and obstruction outside establishments used by faith-based groups and ban the public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols.
A report by Blacklock’s Reporter on February 23 revealed that internal Department of Justice documents show the law’s reach could extend further—to include anyone obstructing Indigenous sacred sites or areas identified as unmarked graves.
A departmental memo titled “Supplemental Questions and Answers” confirmed the government’s aim to ensure “Indigenous peoples and their religious and cultural spaces receive equal protections under Bill C-9.”
As Parliament moves closer to voting on the controversial act, the tension between defining hate and protecting free expression remains unresolved—a conflict that cuts to the heart of how Canada interprets liberty in a pluralistic society.
- Raju Hasmukh with files fromCatholic Register
Related Images:
