Toronto, ON – June 26, 2026 – We want to draw our supporters’ attention to a recent article in The Catholic Register titled “Bill C-9 presents uncertain terrain for religious Canadians“. The feature highlights the vital advocacy work of CCRL President and General Counsel, Phil Horgan, following the passage of Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which comes into force on July 18, 2026. Previously, Horgan was quoted in the Register’s Editorial piece “If it ain’t broke…”.
On May 28, Horgan testified before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights alongside a coalition of faith leaders, urging lawmakers to preserve the good-faith religious expression defence in Canada’s hate speech laws. Unfortunately, with the bill receiving royal assent on June 18, Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code has been removed. The CCRL President warns that this creates a “chilling effect” where traditional religious concerns may be suppressed by many to avoid the risk of prosecution.
We encourage you to read the full article at The Catholic Register, in addition to the full editorial, and to read the CCRL’s complete comments on the passage of Bill C-9 below.
CCRL Comments on the Passage of Bill C-9
Brief History of Bill C-9
In response to the recommendations of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (the Cohen Committee) in 1970, hate charges were introduced to the Criminal Code.
The provision provided protection for anyone who “in good faith, expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject”.
In 2004, Parliament passed An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), expanding the scope of protection. Subsection 319(3)(b) was updated to its previous form, explicitly applying to opinions based on “an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.
In the landmark R. v. Keegstra case, 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the “wilful promotion of hatred” provisions as a justifiable limit on free expression, noting that statutory exemptions like good faith religious beliefs and truth claims played a crucial role in preventing a chilling effect on legitimate speech.
The majority found that the inclusion of the defenses in s. 319 (3) contributed to the constitutionality of the section as it clarified the intent of Parliament. The minority (which included Justice McLauchlin) found the section unconstitutional despite the inclusion of the defences.
Chief Justice Dickson noted in Keegstra:
These defences are hence intended to aid in making the scope of the wilful promotion of hatred more explicit; individuals engaging in the type of expression described are thus given a strong signal that their activity will not be swept into the ambit of the offence. The result is that what danger exists that s. 319(2) is overbroad or unduly vague, or will be perceived as such, is significantly reduced. To the extent that s. 319(3) provides justification for the accused who would otherwise fall within the parameters of the offence of wilfully promoting hatred, it reflects a commitment to the idea that an individual’s freedom of expression will not be curtailed in borderline cases. The line between the rough and tumble of public debate and brutal, negative and damaging attacks upon identifiable groups is hence adjusted in order to give some leeway to freedom of expression. (R. v. Keegstra, 3 SCR 697.)
The provision of the religious texts defence did not stand in the way of previous prosecutions, some of which prevailed, such as in R v Harding (2001), where the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision that Harding did willfully promote hatred. Though the pamphlets he distributed did contain religious opinions, at trial Justice Linden found that while religious opinion is strongly protected, this protection cannot be extended to shield this type of communication simply because they are contained in the same message and the one is used to bolster the other. If that were the case, religious opinion could be used with impunity as a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by s. 319…
In R. v. Popescu (2020) the Ontario Court of Justice affirmed that only after “the Crown has proven all the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt” that the court then determines whether any of the defenses apply.
As in Harding, in this case the court found that the defendant “did not limit his materials to those opinions” (that is religious opinions), and that he “specifically called people to action through violence.”
Deliberations on Bill C-9
The current revised Bill C-9 passed third reading in the House of Commons, and owing to a deal with the Bloc Quebecois in December, the bill removed the good faith /religious texts defence in s. 319(3)(b).
The requirement for leave of the provincial Attorney General was restored in the current version of the Bill after committee hearings. It is an important amendment, but this requirement may only afford limited protection, because a provincial Attorney General may be subjected to political winds, pressure groups, or other factors to authorize prosecutions. The A.G. leave provision may not afford sufficient protection to religious minorities, or to prosecution of clergy.
A late amendment prior to third reading in February proposed to suggest that “for clarity” charges could be avoided if the impugned message could be argued to be in the public interest.
Our submission, including to the Senate committee studying the bill on May 28, 2026, was that the inclusion of the good faith religious defence was considered important and integral for the constitutionality of section 319, to address the concern that good faith expressions of religious belief would not be captured. The defence was critical in balancing the prohibition against hateful speech and the protection of religious minorities and their freedoms.
In our view, the removal of the religious text defence would no longer expressly protect good-faith religious expression as a distinct category.
The Senate passed Bill C-9 with one amendment on June 4. The Senate voted to add a specific symbol, the noose, to the new offence of wilful promotion of hatred through the display of certain symbols in Bill C-9. A motion to add clarity and protection for religious expression in the clarification clause was debated and defeated. The House of Commons voted to adopt the Senate’s amendment on June 17, 2026, such that the bill will be proclaimed into law within 30 days.
Recommendations
It is difficult to propose strategies for avoidance of a criminal complaint or possible charge under the new regime. Some traditional religious concerns will be suppressed by many to avoid the risk of prosecution.
For example, a complainant could report a speech or sermon as “hateful” if a religious leader were to demean certain sexual acts or trans ideology alleging that a person exposed to such words considered themselves to be targeted and exposing them to “hatred”, i.e. extreme vilification.
If a complaint was made, the police or the Crown could pursue an investigation, which may require the speaker or writer to answer for themselves how their words were used and intended. Legal advice should be secured.
In the Christian community, it should be remembered that we communicate in love, and do not promote hatred. But there are teachings in traditional Christian morality which do not agree with views of many others in areas of sexual morality or gender diversity.
The recommendation would be to ensure that messaging be communicated in truth and in love. References to scriptural or catechetical authority would assist in surviving scrutiny even with the absence of the good faith defence from the former s. 319, owing to the general public interest in promoting the word of God.
We can also expect a legal challenge on the removal of the good faith religious defence from the Code, as it was a key provision to allow the original hate crime charges to survive constitutional scrutiny.
The Justice Minister has stated “Canadians will always be able to pray, preach, teach, interpret Scripture and express religious belief in good faith, without fear of criminal sanction.”
We remain hopeful that these words prove to be true.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We urgently ask for your financial support so that we may continue to defend Catholic teaching and fight anti-Catholic defamation across Canada.
Donate Now — Please visit https://ccrl.ca/support/ to contribute securely online.
We appeal to any of you who are able to send a donation to the CCRL by clicking here or by mailing a cheque to the CCRL at PO Box 84505, RPO Bloor West, Toronto, ON, M6S 4Z7, or by calling the office at (416) 466-8244.
About the CCRL
Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) (www.ccrl.ca) assists in creating conditions within which Catholic teachings can be better understood, cooperates with other organizations in defending civil rights in Canada, and opposes defamation and discrimination against Catholics on the basis of their beliefs. The CCRL was founded in 1985 as an independent lay organization with a large nationwide membership base. The CCRL is a Canadian non-profit organization entirely supported by the generosity of its members.
To donate to the CCRL, please click here.
For further information:
ccrl@ccrl.ca
416-466-8244
@CCRLtweets