Read the Full Guide. Bill C‑9: What Every Canadian Needs to Know

Bill C-9: What Canadians Need to Know About Speech and Religious Freedom

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of religion. These rights are not abstract—they shape what Canadians can say, write, or believe every day. Bill C-9 is now law. It amends the Criminal Code in ways that threaten to restrict these freedoms—changes Canadians need to understand clearly.

What Bill C-9 Does

Bill C-9 removes the “good faith religious opinion” defence from the Criminal Code—a protection for religious expression that had stood since 1970. It also creates a new offence for publicly displaying certain hate and terrorism symbols, and new offences for intimidating or obstructing people trying to access places of worship, schools, and community centres. The requirement for the Attorney General’s consent before a hate-speech prosecution remains, and a “greater certainty” clause was added stating that good-faith religious, educational, and political discussion is not captured unless it wilfully promotes hatred. But critics argue that clause is a weaker shield than the specific defence it replaces, and that enforcement still turns heavily on interpretation. With the religious defence gone, ordinary teaching, preaching, or scriptural quotation could—depending on context—be drawn into a hate-speech investigation.

Even where the Attorney General’s consent is required before charges proceed, the removal of the defence widens the zone of uncertainty. Individuals sharing lawful content could still be investigated, and defending against a complaint—even one that never leads to conviction—can mean lengthy stress and high legal fees, all for speech that is entirely lawful.

Freedom of Speech at Risk

Section 2(b) of the Charter protects Canadians’ right to speak, write, and debate ideas—even unpopular or controversial ones. Bill C-9 increases the risk that lawful speech could be silenced.

Consider these examples:

A small blog criticizing government policy on climate change, taxes, or education could be flagged if someone finds the content objectionable.

Journalists reporting on controversial issues may hesitate to publish critical opinions.

University professors presenting multiple viewpoints in a classroom could face complaints under vague standards.

When laws are broad and penalties are high, people self-censor to avoid legal trouble. This chilling effect is real and impacts Canadians’ everyday discussions, online and in public spaces.

Religious Expression in Danger

Section 2(a) of the Charter protects freedom of religion and conscience. Canadians are free to practice their faith and express moral or ethical views publicly. Bill C-9 could put these expressions at greater risk if they are interpreted as crossing the line into hatred—and with the good-faith religious defence now removed, that interpretation is left more open than before.

Real-world examples include:

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 unclear standards.

Restrictions on religious expression affect more than faith communities—they erode every Canadian’s right to discuss ideas openly and freely.

Why Clarity Matters

Laws that are vague create uncertainty. Citizens and organizations cannot confidently know what is allowed. Bill C-9 leaves much to interpretation, which is risky. Legal challenges will follow, but until decisions are made, ordinary Canadians may avoid legitimate speech.

Political Blinders

During House debates, the government claimed Bill C-9 is not intended to hinder free speech or religious freedom. Yet, in the 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 hate speech. Intentions are not written into law; bold statements such as those by MP Miller tend to give direction to how a law is 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.

Existing Laws

Canada 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 reluctance to enforce what exists. 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 Line

Bill C-9 is more than a change to the statute books—it is a test of how seriously Canada protects the freedoms guaranteed in our Charter. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not optional; they are essential for a democratic society.

Now that this law is in force, the test moves from Parliament to the courts and to everyday life—where its true reach will be settled case by case. Ordinary Canadians could face real uncertainty about what they can say, write, or believe. The question is simple: do we want laws that leave our ability to speak, debate, and practice our faith this exposed to interpretation?