{"id":39069,"date":"2026-06-05T14:56:57","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T18:56:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=39069"},"modified":"2026-06-05T14:56:57","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T18:56:57","slug":"bill-c-9-senate-passes-bill-without-amendments-for-religious-expression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/legal\/2026\/06\/05\/bill-c-9-senate-passes-bill-without-amendments-for-religious-expression\/","title":{"rendered":"Bill C-9: Senate Passes Bill Without Amendments for Religious Expression"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 9 of 9 in the series Bill C-9<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

The Senate passed Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate <\/em>Act<\/a> without making any amendments to address religious expression despite being urged to do so by lawyers, civil liberties organizations, and a diverse array of faith groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senate Votes on Amendments<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At Report stage on June 3, the Senate \u201cnegatived\u201d (defeated)<\/a> an amendment proposed by the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights<\/a>, which would have added \u201ccondoning, denying or downplaying the Indian Residential Schools Systems\u201d to the offence of wilful promotion of hatred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Third Reading stage on June 4, the Senate debated Bill C-9. It passed an amendment<\/a> to add noose to the list of symbols to the offence of wilful promotion of hatred by displaying terrorism and hate symbols.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Senate also debated an amendment to the \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d clause, as proposed by Christian Legal Fellowship<\/a> and supported by CCCC<\/a>. The amendment was defeated in a 40-21 vote<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d Clause?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d clause was intended to clarify the scope of conduct captured by the hate offences and was introduced in response to the significant opposition and concern over removing the good faith religious defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readers may recall that the first version of Bill C-9<\/a> did not remove the good faith religious defence. Instead, it became a victim of political bargaining between federal parties whereby the minority government (at the time) required another party\u2019s support in order to pass the Bill. To secure that support, the good faith religious defence was repealed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As noted, the \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d clause was added in response to significant outcry<\/a> over the repeal of the good faith religious defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The clause is included twice in Bill C-9 to \u201cclarify\u201d different offences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Clarification \u2014 subsections 319(2) and (2.\u200d2)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

11.\u200d1\u2002(1)\u2002For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.\u200d2) of the Criminal Code 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 wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clarification \u2014 subsection 319(2.\u200d1)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2)\u2002For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2.\u200d1) of the Criminal Code 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 wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

While this change was promoted as being helpful, it does not offer the same protection of religious expression as the good-faith religious defence in the Criminal Code<\/em>.<\/a> The good faith religious defence expressly safeguards religious expression in ways this new wording does not. The clauses merely restate the offence; they essentially say \u2018your religious statements are not a criminal offence if they don\u2019t wilfuly promote hatred\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The amendment would have changed the clause to be:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

For greater certainty, nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.\u200d2) of the Criminal Code shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement, in good faith,<\/u> on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debateif they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement<\/s>.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Misleading Debate on \u201cfor greater certainty\u201d Amendment and Good Faith Religious Defence<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

During the Senate debate<\/a>, there was misrepresentation and confusion about the legal implications of the amendment. Some Senators suggested that the amendment would limit<\/em> protection for good faith religious expression by lowering the threshold for prosecution of the offence. But this confused the offence<\/em> with a clarification<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The offence sets out what must be proven to prosecute the offence (these are known as elements of an offence). The clarification is not<\/em> meant to repeat the elements of the offence. Instead it is meant to carve out conduct that is not captured by the offence. The amendment would have fulfilled that purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Senators also suggested<\/a> that the defence should be repealed because \u201cgood faith religious expression, debate and teaching are fully protected by the Charter<\/em>\u201d and that the proposed amendment was \u201csolving a problem that does not exist.\u201d Senators further argued that the good faith religious defence was \u201ca loophole\u201d that \u201callowed the deliberate incitement of hatred against Canadians [\u2026] simply because the speaker wrapped it in religious language.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court decisions say otherwise. The Supreme Court of Canada<\/a> explained that the defences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n