“Hatred inflicts profound harm on targeted individuals and communities, and on society as a whole.
...
What the pursuit of truth requires in a free and democratic society [is this]: protecting the practice of debating ideas without attacking the individuals who hold them.”
On October 30, 2025, CLF’s Executive Director and General Counsel Derek Ross appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to make submissions on Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).
Bill C-9 seeks to strengthen Canada’s anti-hatred regime by amending the Criminal Code to create new offences for hate-motivated crimes and intimidation, as well as to codify a definition of "hatred”, among other proposed amendments.
As a national association of legal professionals working with faith communities and other minority groups, Christian Legal Fellowship shares the government’s aspiration to combat acts that propagate and normalize hatred. As such, CLF made three recommendations to the Justice Committee with the goal of ensuring that these initiatives are both effective and constitutionally sound. As CLF explained in our brief:
“[I]t is important that Bill C-9 avoid two potential pitfalls. The first pitfall is a regime that is so nebulous and unclear that it makes prosecutions difficult, and enforcement ineffective. This leaves harmful and tangible manifestations of hatred unaddressed. The second pitfall is that the term “hatred” can be defined imprecisely and then utilized to silence speech that is not hateful but rather hated by those who deem it offensive, and wish to suppress it. Determining what constitutes “hate” or “hatred” can be inherently subjective and laden with value judgments, and susceptible to misuse or misinterpretation. Parliament’s response to hatred must therefore strike a careful balance, lest well-meaning government restrictions undermine Canada’s constitutional commitments to freedom, equality, and pluralism. ”
CLF’s recommendations were designed to help ensure that Bill C-9 achieves the dual objectives of targeting manifestations of hatred with precision and preserving appropriate protection for freedom of expression. They reflect a number of concerns raised by various other groups across Canada.
First, CLF urged the Committee to clarify and amend the definition of “hatred” to explicitly refer to the “extreme manifestation” (and not just the “emotion”) of “hatred”, as established by Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. The “extreme” threshold mitigates the risk of a “chilling effect” on public dialogue, and the “manifestation” requirement retains the focus on modes of expression and the effect those modes of expression have on its audience, rather than on a speaker’s (subjective) emotions.
Secondly, CLF recommended an amendment that refines the offence in s. 320.1001 from one “motivated” by hatred to one “committed with the intent to incite hatred”. This would ensure, among others, that the harm is “assessed as objectively as possible” by focussing on the “societal harm flowing from hate” (see Saskatchewan (HRC) v Whatcott at para 82)—that is, by focussing on the effects of an act and not on the subjective, emotional state of an accused.
Finally, CLF encouraged the Committee to maintain the s. 319(3) defences, which exist to protect Canadians against imprisonment for good faith expression of sincerely held beliefs.
CLF submitted that the s. 319(3)(b) defence (for good faith religious expression) is directly in line with principles of justice and equality that inform efforts to combat discrimination and hatred. Importantly, this defence applies equally to good faith expression critiquing a religious text as it does to expression endorsing or relying on it. CLF maintained that to remove this defence would risk undermining the constitutional integrity of the entire s. 319 regime.
This sparked some debate during the question period, where Committee members questioned Mr. Ross on whether this defence should be repealed, given the purported risk for misuse or abuse. Mr. Ross explained:
“The [s. 319(3)b)] defence has been really important in the courts’ consideration of the entire anti-hatred framework in section 319. In fact, this defence and the other defences in subsection (3) have been pivotal in demonstrating to the courts that the legislation does strike the right balance—that is doesn’t intrude too far on citizens’ rights to freedom of opinion and expression.
[...]
The courts have been very clear that this defence cannot be used to cloak hateful expression with impunity – the language they use is “as a Trojan Horse to carry [an] intended message of hate”.”
The Chair of the Committee then asked Mr. Ross about the concept of “good faith” in the defence, particularly in contexts where “there are clearly passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful”. Mr. Ross responded as follows:
“I don’t know that I would agree with that characterization, Mr. Chair, that passages are categorically hateful, especially not passages in the Bible. If members of Parliament are of the view that passages of the Bible are hateful, that is something that Canadians should be aware of... I think your concern is the way that the Bible might be relied upon or cited to advance particular messages. That was specifically dealt with in Whatcott.
[...]
What [the good faith defence] does is ensure that Canadians can engage in religious dialogue or debate or discussion on very difficult, controversial issues. Many Canadians are wrestling with truth, and so we have a defence in subsection (3)(a) [for] truth, but that doesn’t necessarily apply when we are talking about
religious truth, because it would be inappropriate for the courts or for the government to opine categorically on whether a particular religious claim is truthful or not. ... when it comes to some of these fundamental questions, we want to preserve room for people to engage in dialogue both critical of religious texts and relying on religious texts—it works both ways—to try to seek and discern truth without fear of being labelled a blasphemer, or a criminal, or a hate-monger by those who find their beliefs offensive and would try to silence them.”
Because further responses to the committee members’ questions were cut short due to time constraints, CLF submitted a follow-up letter to the Committee (linked below). That letter explained:
The s. 319(3)(b) defence does not apply to threats of violence, which are by definition excluded from the scope of the Charter’s protection for freedom of expression, and could never be expressed “in good faith”. Thus, the scenarios posed during the Committee meeting (embedding threats of violence in a so-called prayer, for example) would not fall within the s. 319(3)(b) defence, and should not be relied on to suggest that the s. 319(3)(b) defence is inappropriate or would protect threats of violence; and
The defences do not excuse the public incitement of hatred simply because someone cites a religious text. At the same time, they ensure that a good faith, truth-seeking exegesis of a religious text is not itself a hate crime—even where opposing voices might allege that the content of the text is, in their view, ‘hateful’.
CLF is grateful to bring the voice of over 750 Christian lawyers, law students, retired judges and other legal professionals from across Canada into the discussions around these important issues. If you would like to support the work of CLF, please see here.
View videos of CLF’s appearance before the Committee:
Note: the following clips are taken directly from the full recording of the October 30, 2025 Committee meeting, which can be viewed on ParlVu.
CLF Executive Director and General Counsel, Derek Ross, gives Opening Remarks on Bill C-9 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on October 30, 2025.
CLF Executive Director and General Counsel, Derek Ross, responds to questions on Bill C-9 from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on October 30, 2025.