CROSSON: Bill C-9 — what Canadians need to know about speech and religious freedom

Randy Crosson is the Executive Director of Freedoms Advocate.The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought and expression and freedom of religion, among other fundamental rights. These concepts are not abstract — they dictate what Canadians can say, write, or believe every day.Bill C-9 is proposed legislation currently before the Senate that would regulate certain forms of expression and amend Canada's hate propaganda laws. Critics argue that it threatens to restrict these freedoms in ways Canadians need to understand clearly.What Bill C-9 DoesBill C-9 removes the “good faith religious speech” defence from the Criminal Code. While amendments restore the clause requiring the Attorney General’s consent for hate speech prosecutions, critics argue that enforcement would still remain largely discretionary.The bill gives authorities expanded powers regarding hate propaganda offences and creates new hate-related offences. Critics contend that the legislation could affect online communications and public expression in ways that are not always clear. Ordinary discussions, religious teachings, or public opinions could become the subject of complaints or legal scrutiny.These changes could permit greater use of hate propaganda provisions by private complainants. Individuals sharing lawful content could face lengthy legal battles and significant legal costs defending themselves — even when their speech is ultimately found to be lawful.Freedom of Speech at RiskSection 2(b) of the Charter protects Canadians’ right to speak, write, and debate ideas — even unpopular or controversial ones. Critics argue that Bill C-9 increases the risk that lawful speech could be challenged..Consider some of these examples.A small blog criticizing government policy on climate change, taxes, or education could become the subject of complaints if someone considers the content harmful.Journalists reporting on controversial issues may hesitate to publish critical opinions.University professors presenting multiple viewpoints in a classroom could face complaints under broad standards.When laws are broad and penalties are high, people are more likely to self-censor to avoid legal trouble. This chilling effect can influence Canadians’ everyday discussions, online and in public spaces..Religious Expression in DangerSection 2(a) of the Charter protects freedom of religion and conscience. Canadians are supposed to be free to practice their faith and express moral or ethical views publicly.Bill C-9 could affect these expressions if they are interpreted as promoting hatred, particularly given the removal of the longstanding religious speech defence.Some real-world examples could include the following.Churches posting traditional teachings on marriage or family could face complaints.Religious educators might avoid certain scriptural topics.Faith communities may feel pressured to silence parts of their message to comply with evolving legal standards.Restrictions on religious expression affect more than faith communities — they erode every Canadian’s right to discuss ideas openly and freely..All Expression in DangerArchbishop John Ireland (1838–1918) once said, “Religious liberty is the bedrock of all liberties.”Religious liberty protects freedom of conscience — to seek truth, form beliefs, and ultimately live out those convictions independent of the government of the day.Bill C-9’s broader hate propaganda provisions, combined with the removal of the religious defence, weaken safeguards that many believe currently help protect ordinary political and social speech from criminal prosecution.Why Clarity MattersVague laws create uncertainty. Citizens and organizations cannot confidently know what is allowed. Critics argue that Bill C-9 leaves too much to interpretation, creating risks for lawful expression. Legal challenges are likely, but until courts provide guidance, ordinary Canadians may avoid legitimate speech.Political BlindersDuring House debates, the government claimed Bill C-9 is not intended to hinder free speech or religious freedom. Yet, in Justice Committee hearings, MP Marc Miller, then chair of the committee, specifically pointed to passages in the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans as potentially constituting hate speech. Intentions are not written into law; however, statements such as those by Miller tend to influence how legislation may be applied. In practice, legislation’s impact is determined case by case as courts interpret it. Recent trends show ideological disputes increasingly moving into the courts, where groups challenge the speech of their opponents. Laws must be clear in language and scope — not designed merely to score political points..Recent Senate DevelopmentsBill C-9 is currently in the committee stage in the Senate. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has been reviewing the legislation and has adopted several amendments.One amendment that the Senate shot down would have explicitly criminalized “residential school denialism” by designating the denial, minimization, or justification of the harms of the Indian residential school system as a form of hate propaganda.Another amendment clarifies the intent required for the bill’s new intimidation offence. According to supporters, this change is intended to ensure that the provision targets individuals who deliberately seek to provoke fear and does not inadvertently capture peaceful, Charter-protected protest activity.At the same time, the committee voted down an amendment proposed by Conservative senators that would have restored the 56-year-old “sincere religious speech” defence contained in paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Despite considerable opposition to the removal of those protections from religious and free-speech advocates, no amendment restoring them has been adopted. To many observers, this suggests that the removal of the “in good faith” protections will remain part of the bill.The Senate committee has heard from a wide range of witnesses, including representatives of religious organizations, free-speech advocates, legal experts, and ideological rights groups. Because the Senate has amended the bill, it must still return to the full Senate for the report stage and third reading. If passed by the Senate, it will then return to the House of Commons, which must decide whether to accept or reject the Senate’s amendments. As a result, the legislative process is expected to continue for some time before the bill can become law.Some observers believe that restoring the religious “in good faith” protections would be the amendment most likely to create significant political challenges for the government. Supporters of that amendment argue it is the key protection needed for religious communities and for Canadians concerned about freedom of speech and expression more broadly..Existing LawsCanada already has statutes that allow governments and law enforcement to address hate speech and harmful communications. The challenge lies less in the absence of law than in the reluctance to enforce what already exists. Some observers argue that hesitation by officials, sometimes to avoid backlash, has helped create the conditions for Bill C-9. Governments may use new legislation as a signal of action rather than fully applying existing powers.Bottom LineBill C-9 is more than a proposed law — it is a test of how seriously Canada protects the freedoms guaranteed in the Charter. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not optional; they are essential to a democratic society.Although the bill has not yet become law, critics remain concerned that, if enacted without substantial revisions, it could impose new restrictions on what Canadians may say, write, or express publicly. The question is simple: do we want laws that limit our ability to speak, debate, or practice our faith?Randy Crosson is the Executive Director of Freedoms Advocate.

CROSSON: Bill C-9 — what Canadians need to know about speech and religious freedom

Related Stories

CAMPBELL: The real threat isn't residential school ‘denialism' — it's censorship

Fraser defends religious freedom protections under Bill C-9

BARBER: Canada’s free speech crisis is no accident

BARCLAY: The Liberals’ attack on human rights in Canada