Dear constituents,
Thank you very much for writing and for sharing your concerns about the proposed changes to section 319 of the Criminal Code as part of Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act.
Communities across Canada are facing a troubling rise in hate motivated intimidation and violence. The purpose of Bill C-9 is to strengthen protections so that every person can live, worship, and express their beliefs freely without fear of harassment or threat.
Canada’s commitment to freedom of religion is unwavering. Freedom of religion and expression is a fundamental guarantee under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nothing in Bill C-9 changes that. Canadians will continue to be fully protected in their right to pray, preach, interpret scripture, gather in community, and express religious beliefs.
Some have raised concerns about the repeal of section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, sometimes called the “good faith” religious exemption defence. Let me be clear: the expression of sincerely held religious beliefs will never be a crime. The amendments to section 319 of the Criminal Code will in no way restrict your ability to worship or practice your faith. (see below for common misconceptions and myths).
The enactment of the Charter in 1982 made redundant the “good faith” religious exemption defence. Section 2 of the Charter guarantees for all Canadians the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion. The Supreme Court of Canada has been clear: section 2 of the Charter protects sincerely held religious beliefs from any government action that interferes with the ability to act in accordance with their religious beliefs
The legal threshold for the offence of wilfully promoting hatred is also intentionally and appropriately extremely high. The offence will apply only if, taking into consideration the context of the action and the motives of the individual, the speech in question was communicated with the intention to promote hatred. The definition of “hatred” set out by the Supreme Court requires extreme vilification that goes far beyond criticism, doctrine, or moral teaching.
In the 55 years since its enactment, the “good faith” religious exemption defence has never been successfully used to acquit an accused. This is because courts have been clear that the defence is redundant: sincerely held religious beliefs communicated accurately and in good faith will never constitute the promotion of hatred.
Removing this clause does not change the law for people of faith. Rather, it clarifies the Criminal Code while maintaining full constitutional protection for freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Our government will continue engaging with faith leaders, legal experts, and civil society to reinforce this commitment and ensure clarity for all Canadians.
A strong Canada protects every person’s right to worship freely while ensuring that no one is targeted with acts of extreme hate that threaten public safety or social cohesion. Thank you again for taking the time to reach out.
Your voice is valued.
Sincerely,
MP Chris Malette
Myth 1: Reading, teaching, or even discussing religious texts or beliefs is now “hate speech.”
Fact: The expression of sincerely held religious beliefs is not now and will never be a crime. The offence of wilfully promoting hatred will only apply when religious text is combined with contextual factors that show the individual is intentionally promoting hatred. To constitute an offence, he text must be manipulated by bad faith actors to push their hateful agendas.
Myth 2: The repeal of the “good faith” religious exemption defence creates a censorship regime.
Fact: The right to freedom of expression, including religious expression, is guaranteed by the Charter. The amendments to Bill C-9 will in no way restrict Canadians’ freedom to express sincerely held religious beliefs.
Myth 3: This creates ‘bubble zones’ and bans protests near synagogues, mosques, or cultural centres.
Fact: It does not create distance-based protest zones. The proposal targets criminal conduct: being intimidated (intent to cause fear, not subjectively feeling afraid) and intentional physical obstruction around specified places.
Myth 4: Chanting or holding signs could get people charged.
Fact: No. These laws exclude people who are there only to obtain or communicate information (i.e., peaceful protest). Violence and threats aren’t protected expression.
Myth 5: Any big crowd that slows entry is ‘obstruction.’
Fact: Obstruction requires intentional interference with access. Mere presence to communicate without physically blocking doesn’t make out the offence.
Myth 6: The hate-crime offence jails people for opinions.
Fact: The hate-crime offence applies only when a separate federal offence is committed (e.g., assault, mischief) and it’s motivated by hatred. The penalties scale with the underlying offence’s seriousness. It does not criminalize mere opinions or insults.
Myth 7: Hatred just means being rude or offensive.
Fact: The Supreme Court says “hatred” is detestation and vilification, which is an extreme standard. The proposal would codify that; dislike, disdain, offence or humiliation alone are not hatred.
Myth 8: Universities and community centres are automatically covered.
Fact: Determining whether a property is or is not captured by the proposed offences would generally be a highly fact-specific exercise and ultimately for the courts to determine. However, some properties will more clearly be captured than others.
Importantly, the existing general intimidation and obstruction offences apply to all property, and so any property that is not captured by these new offences would continue to be captured by the existing offences of general application. As examples of places that would likely be covered:
- Churches, Synagogues, Mosques: Yes, because religious institutions would be specifically identified.
- Religious daycares and religious schools: Yes, although not specifically identified, these are educational institutions that are primarily used by an “identifiable group” based on religion.
- Secular daycares and secular schools: Likely yes, as these are educational institutions primarily used by an “identifiable group” based on “age” (i.e., young people).
- Colleges and Universities: Possibly, if the educational institution in question was used primarily by an “identifiable group” (e.g., private Christian college).
- Funeral Homes: Possibly, if the funeral home was used for administrative or cultural purposes primarily by an “identifiable group” or was determined to be a place of worship.
- Seniors’ Residences: Yes, if the residence was used primarily by an “identifiable group”.
- Cultural Centre: Yes, if it was used primarily by an “identifiable group”.
- Community Centre: Possibly, if the property is used for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events "primarily by an "identifiable group”.
- LGBTQ+ spaces: Possibly, if the property is used "primarily” by that "identifiable group” for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events.
- Museums: Unlikely, unless it is used primarily by an identifiable group.
- Hillel Campus Centres and Muslim Student Centres: Possibly, if the spaces were used primarily by these “identifiable groups”. It may be less clear in situations where rooms at issue are not dedicated primarily for use by these groups.
Myth 9: This bans any protest symbol the Liberals don’t like
Fact: No. It bans a specific and closed list of symbols: (a) those principally used by or associated with a listed terrorist entity; (b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz (swastika) or Nazi SS bolts; and (c) confusingly similar look-alikes.
Myth 10: Just displaying a symbol is a crime
Fact: No. The offence is displaying one of those symbols in a public place and doing so willfully to promote hatred against an identifiable group. Intent (“wilfully”) and the hatred threshold must both be met.