“It is through the open expression of our disagreement that we can show our concern and care for each other, by highlighting possible paths to a better life in our collective search for truth.”
On May 25, 2026, Christian Legal Fellowship (CLF) submitted a written Brief to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights on the federal government’s Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).
In October 2025, CLF gave written submissions on Bill C-9 and appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST Committee). Since then, CLF has been invited to make further recommendations to those reviewing and examining this legislation over the past number of months.
Having now passed in the House of Commons, Bill C-9 currently proposes to amend the Criminal Code’s anti-hatred regime to codify an amended definition of “hatred”, to repeal the statutory defences for good faith expression, and to create new offences for hate-motivated crimes and intimidation, among other proposed amendments.
The submissions contained in CLF’s Brief respond to the legislative developments out of the House of Commons, and build on the ongoing consultations and discussions around the Bill’s scope and implementation.
CLF shares the government’s desire to combat all acts that propagate and normalize hatred. We therefore wish to ensure that initiatives like Bill C-9 are both effective and constitutionally sound. Parliament’s response to hatred must strike a careful balance, lest well-meaning government restrictions undermine Canada’s constitutional commitments to freedom, equality, and pluralism.
CLF’s Recommendations
CLF makes three recommendations to ensure that Bill C-9 achieves the dual objectives of targeting manifestations of hatred with precision and preserving appropriate protection for freedom of expression. These two objectives are not mutually exclusive, but can be simultaneously advanced and upheld through carefully tailored legislation.
CLF’s recommendations all seek to achieve greater consistency with the government’s stated intention to codify the Supreme Court of Canada’s conception of “hatred” in R v Keegstra ([1990] 3 SCR 697) and Saskatchewan (HRC) v Whatcott (2013 SCC 11).
recommendation 1: clarify the definition of “hatred”
First, CLF recommends amending the definition of “hatred” and adding s. 319(7.1), the language of which is drawn from paras 41, 59, and 95 of Saskatchewan (HRC) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, where CLF intervened as a friend of the court (new language underlined):
Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following … :
hatred means the manifestation of an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation; (haine)
(7.1) For the purposes of determining “hatred”, the court must consider whether, in the view of a reasonable person aware of the context and circumstances, the activity in question exposes or tends to expose members of an identifiable group to enmity and extreme ill-will, or seeks to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them to render them dangerous or unworthy, in the eyes of the audience.
While the Bill’s current definition as amended (following recommendations by CLF and others) is a significant improvement, it still omits some important parameters contained in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. Those include the need to: (1) assess hatred objectively, and not based on the subjective feelings of a speaker or those opposing their expression; (2) regulate “extreme manifestations” of detestation and vilification, and not the emotions themselves; and (3) target not the content of one’s ideas but the harmful modes and effects of their expression (Saskatchewan (HRC) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, paras 51, 56–58).
These further amendments will help clarify the statutory definition of “hatred” to ensure consistency, objectivity, and effectiveness in Bill C-9’s application.
Recommendation 2: maintain and clarify protections for good faith religious expression
CLF remains concerned that Bill C-9 was amended in the House of Commons to remove the good faith religious expression defence in s. 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, and urges the Senate to restore this defence to protect the overall purpose and constitutionality of the regime.
First, CLF’s Brief clarifies that the s. 319(3)(b) defence does not shield threats of violence, contrary to the misconceptions posited by others. The case law makes very clear that threats of violence are, by definition, excluded from the scope of the Charter’s protection for freedom of expression, and could never be expressed “in good faith” (see CLF’s Brief at pp 3–4).
Thus, scenarios such as embedding threats in a so-called prayer simply would not fall within the scope of the defence. To the contrary, by protecting only “good faith” (but potentially controversial) speech, the defence actually protects the opposite of violence – expression that fosters dialogue rather than preventing it.
The courts have further recognized that the s. 319(3) defences, including the defence for good faith religious expression, create a positive balancing effect and that, because of these “built in defences and restrictions”, s. 319(2) has only “a very minimal effect on the overall right of freedom of expression” (see R v Keegstra, [1984] AJ No 643 at para 86). This has ultimately contributed to the courts upholding the constitutionality of s. 319(2), demonstrating how the s. 319(3) defences strengthen the regime as a whole (see CLF’s Brief at pp 4–5).
Moreover, the legislative history of the s. 319(3)b) defence confirms that it has long been understood as a means of ensuring that the goals of combatting hatred and protecting good faith expression can co-exist (see CLF’s Brief at pp 5–6).
Secondly, CLF recommends clarifying the language in Bill C-9’s new “for greater certainty” clause – which the government introduced in response to concerns raised by CLF and others – as follows:
For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement, in good faith, 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 by communicating the statement.
Bill C-9 needs to make clear what is – and what is not – included in the meaning of “wilful promotion of hatred”. Stating that communications on a matter of public interest do not wilfully promote hatred “if they do not wilfully promote hatred” is circular and fails to address the central issue: what constitutes the wilful promotion of hatred to begin with?
Good faith religious expression is, definitionally, not hateful, as the Supreme Court expressly recognized in Whatcott (at paras 197–99):
sacred texts such as the Bible … will typically have characteristics which cannot be ignored if they are to be properly assessed in relation to [the hate speech law] … objective observers would interpret excerpts of the Bible with an awareness that it contains more than one sort of message, some of which involve themes of love, tolerance and forgiveness … the biblical passage, in and of itself, cannot be taken as inspiring detestation and vilification…
CLF’s proposed amendment clarifies the fundamental difference between disagreement over ideas – which is an essential ingredient of genuine pluralism – and promoting detestation of individuals – which is not.
CLF proposes adding this amended clause directly to the text of the Criminal Code, in order to bring clarity to the scope of the offence by expressly excluding good faith communications about ideas and opinions (rather than bad faith statements vilifying individuals). The term “good faith” already exists in s. 319(3)(d) as well as in many other places in the Criminal Code and is a well-established concept in criminal law, thus helping to provide clarity without undermining the laudable goals of the legislation.
Recommendation 3: Refine the proposed hate-motivated offence in s. 320.1001
Finally, CLF makes a number of recommendations to clarify the proposed offence in s. 320.1001:
320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence — referred to in this section as the “included offence” — under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the included offence is motivated by committed with the intent to incite hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the punishment provided for in subsection (5); or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Clarification
(3) For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by intended to incite hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.
(3.1) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
(3.2) For greater certainty, it is not an offence under this section to discuss, criticize, or argue in good faith for or against any opinion, belief, behaviour, or practice, whether based on scientific, moral, religious, philosophical, or other grounds.
Section 320.1001(1) of Bill C-9 prescribes an additional criminal charge where the commission of an included offence is motivated by hatred. However, section 718.2(a)(i) already requires courts to consider “evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate” as an aggravating factor in imposing a sentence.
A new offence with separate and additional penalties should be carefully tailored to target a distinct and specific harm (and CLF notes existing Criminal Code provisions could be better employed to deter manifestations of hatred).
CLF recommends an amendment that refines the offence from one “motivated” by hatred to one “committed with the intent to incite hatred”, in keeping with the Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcott, which emphasized that the law’s concern is with the “societal harm flowing from hate” which must be “assessed as objectively as possible”, focusing on the “likely effect of the hate speech” and not on the “feelings of the publisher or victim” (see CLF’s Brief at pp 8–9).
CLF’s amendment also clarifies that this provision would apply only to Criminal Code provisions, not other statutes which are not criminal in nature. CLF’s proposed subsections (3.1 and 3.2) would codify the principle that the Charter protects the freedom to discuss and criticize particular beliefs, opinions, or practices. It would clearly communicate that questioning the teachings or practices of a particular religion or group is not tantamount to vilifying those who hold them.
CLF is grateful for the opportunity to contribute at this stage of Bill C-9’s review, bringing the voice of now over 800 Christian lawyers, law students, retired judges and other legal professionals from across Canada into the discussions around these important issues.
READ CLF’S BRIEF TO THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
FRENCH
ENGLISH
WATCH CLF’S VIDEO ON BILL C-9
FURTHER READING
On the Christian Legal Blog: “Bill C-9 Moves to Senate Review” - April 1, 2026 (legal update & video)
Read more about CLF’s October 2025 appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, including CLF’s written brief and follow-up letter
Watch the video of CLF’s appearance before the Standing Committee on October 30, 2025
Read CLF’s written submissions to the House of Commons JUST Committee (English, Français)
CLF’s engagement on combatting hate online (October 2020)