The Parliament Buildings in Ottawa in a file photo. (Jonathan Ren/The Epoch Times)
A controversial piece of legislation that would remove the religious defence to hate speech from the Criminal Code has been stuck in committee for several months, but now looks set to pass quickly.
Bill C-9, known as the Combatting Hate Act, would create new criminal offences targeting intimidation and the obstruction of access to places of worship. It would also introduce a separate offence for intentionally promoting hatred through the public display of certain symbols, such as Nazi, Hamas, or Hezbollah flags.
But an amendment to the bill, proposed by the Bloc Québécois and backed by the Liberals, would also remove the religious defence to hate speech in the Criminal Code. The Conservatives and religious groups say this amendment could lead to some religious texts effectively being criminalized.
Now, a new Liberal motion proposes that the justice committee immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee, treat all remaining amendments as already moved, and require the chair to call a vote on the bill without further debate.
Conservatives have accused the government of attempting to cut off debate on the bill, while the Liberals have said the Tories are filibustering and that partisanship is preventing the legislation from being passed.
Here’s a look at what the debate on Bill C-9 is all about, why it has become so controversial, and why the Liberals are expediting its passage.
Bill C-9
During the 2025 election campaign, the Liberal Party pledged to introduce legislation making it a criminal offence to intentionally obstruct access to places of worship, schools, and community centres, or intimidate and threaten Canadians attending those services. The party said this was a response to a “horrifying rise in hate and hate-related crimes,” particularly against Muslims and Jews.
Bill C-9, introduced in September 2025, aimed to criminalize the obstruction or intimidation of people attending those locations, make hate-motivated crime a specific offence, and criminalize the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group by publicly displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols.
Conservatives had raised concerns that the bill would remove the requirement for the attorney general’s consent before prosecuting certain hate propaganda offences, as well as add a new definition of “hatred” to the Criminal Code that could be more subjective.
Then in early December, the Bloc announced it had reached an agreement with the Liberals to pass its justice committee amendment removing the religious defence to hate speech in the Criminal Code, in exchange for the Bloc supporting the bill’s passage. The Liberals on the committee needed either the Conservatives or the Bloc to support the bill to obtain passage.
While Liberal MPs on the justice committee voted with the Bloc to approve the amendment on Dec. 9, the bill still needs to be voted on by the House of Commons and to be studied and approved by the Senate.
Justice Minister Sean Fraser said in a statement that freedom of religion is still guaranteed under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the amendment would not change this. He said removing the religious exemption would clarify the law while maintaining the “full constitutional protection” for freedom of religion and expression.
Fraser added that the Crown must first prove the wilful promotion of hatred, and then prove that the expression meets the Supreme Court’s definition of hatred, which is “extreme vilification that goes far beyond criticism, doctrinal teaching, or moral commentary.” The justice minister said most religious texts do not meet this threshold.
However, Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller said there should not be “defence to the crime of publicly inciting hatred” because a Canadian relied on passages in the Bible that calls for death to homosexuals and adulterers.
Conservatives came out against the Bloc amendment, saying it would lead to religious texts effectively being criminalized. Several religious groups and civil society groups have also come out against the amendment, while several Jewish groups expressed support for it and said religious freedom would remain protected by the Charter.
Clarifying Language
During a justice committee meeting on Feb. 23, the Liberals proposed adding a clause to the legislation that they said would address religious groups’ concerns about religious speech being classified as incitement to hatred. This “clarifying language” would state that Canadians are not prohibited from making statements “on a matter of public interest,” including educational, religious, political, or scientific statements, as long as they do not willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.
Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio, parliamentary secretary to the justice minister, said the government had heard from religious groups, legal experts, and civil society about the removal of the religious defence from the Criminal Code. She said the current religious exemption created “interpretive ambiguity that allowed the provision to be invoked in ways Parliament never intended.”
Lattanzio said the clause would add “greater certainty” that nothing in the legislation would impact worship, sermons, prayer, religious education, or “even the good faith of reading and discussion of religious texts.” Lattanzio added that freedom of expression remains “fully protected” by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Conservative MP Andrew Lawton responded that the proposed clause would not “bolster any protections” for religious freedom or freedom of expression. He introduced a sub-amendment to remove the caveat—“if they do not willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement”—from the legislation.
The committee reconvened on Feb. 25 to discuss and vote on Lawton’s sub-amendment, but no vote was held and the time allotted for the committee meeting ran out. Lattanzio said Conservatives had Bill C-9 for more than 50 hours and “Canadians expect Parliament to function and not be stalled indefinitely for partisan reasons.”
A day earlier, Justice Minister Fraser said the Liberals could limit debate on Bill C-9 if it remained in committee for too long, as they made a “commitment” to Canadians to advance the bill through Parliament.
Motion to Expedite Bill
On March 5, the Liberals tabled a motion in the House of Commons to curtail debate and force votes on Bill C-9. The motion would require the justice committee to immediately resume clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, treat all remaining amendments as moved, and call a vote without further debate.
During debate on the motion in the House of Commons on March 9, Lattanzio said the legislation has been stalled because “today’s Conservative Party of Canada is divided on this issue” and the Tories are “delaying the very measures they once supported.”
“At some point, debate must give way to decision. Democracy does not function if legislation can be delayed indefinitely, the communities affected by hate cannot wait,” she said. “Let the legislation come to a vote. Let every member of this House make their position clear to Canadians.”
Conservative MP Larry Brock said the Tories did not support “the method by which they wish C-9 to move through the process” or the Liberals’ “ability to censor debate.” Brock said while Conservatives support allowing Canadians to gather and worship without “fear from terrorists, from individuals who wish to intimidate,” they should also be free from harassment “from the Liberal government.”
Brock said the Liberal government had “no business at all making a backroom deal in the middle of clause-by-clause consideration” with the Bloc. He said the Conservatives likely would have come to an agreement to support Bill C-9, but the Liberals chose to support the amendment for political reasons.
Bloc MP Martin Champoux said that the removal of the religious exemption would not make it easier for the attorney general to launch a prosecution of someone for hate speech, as there would “be another layer of checks and balances.”
Champoux cited the example of a Muslim Imam who called for the killing of Zionists in Montreal in 2023. “It was abominable that he was able to use his religion as an excuse for such remarks,” he said, adding that priests, imams, and rabbis should not be allowed to “call for the extermination of a specific group in society on the basis of a religious text.”
Champoux said the removal of the religious defence would ensure there is no “refuge” for Canadians calling for hate, such as a hypothetical priest calling for a congregation to commit acts of violence against LGBT individuals.
“As my colleague said earlier, there comes a point where we have to work,” Champoux said. “Filibustering doesn’t get you anywhere. We need to move forward.”