A Matter of Concern for People of Faith: Bill C-9
Many Canadians may not yet be aware that Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act,” is advancing quickly through Parliament and is now approaching third reading in the House of Commons before moving to the Senate. Faith communities across Canada, including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, have raised concerns about the bill, particularly the removal of section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, often called the “good faith” or “religious text” defence.
This provision has historically helped ensure that clergy, educators, and believers could quote and teach from sacred texts in good faith without fear of criminal prosecution under hate speech laws.
Bill C-9 should also be understood alongside several other recent federal bills that affect speech and civic life.
Bill C-2 (later reintroduced as C-12) proposed sweeping surveillance powers under the banner of border security. Critics warned that its lawful access provisions would allow authorities to collect subscriber data and online information under weaker legal standards, reviving surveillance proposals that courts had previously rejected.
Bill C-8, the Cyber Security Act, would grant cabinet ministers broad powers to order Internet providers to block individuals, demand subscriber information, and impose massive fines. Critics argue that such measures could allow citizens to be cut off from digital communication and services without normal judicial safeguards.
Bill C-9, the bill now moving through Parliament, weakens existing safeguards in hate speech law and removes the long standing defence protecting good faith religious expression. This change risks creating legal uncertainty for clergy, teachers, and believers discussing moral or religious teachings.
Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, although currently paused, would establish a powerful federal regulator over online speech and create new hate related offences and preemptive legal mechanisms aimed at speech considered likely to cause harm.
Taken together, these proposals represent a significant shift toward greater government oversight of speech, expression, and digital life. Many observers worry that if all of these measures ultimately pass, the cumulative consequences for freedom of conscience, religious expression, privacy, and democratic debate could be profound.
As a constituent in Ottawa South, I wrote to our Member of Parliament, David McGuinty, to express my concerns. I received a response that largely repeated the government’s position. I then replied with a more detailed letter outlining further concerns about religious freedom and legal clarity. Unfortunately, those concerns were never directly addressed. See below for this exchange.
This issue is not about defending hatred or discrimination. Rather, it concerns protecting the freedom to teach and discuss religious beliefs openly and in good faith, something that has long been part of Canada’s democratic and pluralistic tradition.
For those interested in a deeper explanation of the broader legislative context, I discuss these developments in more detail here:
https://scottventureyra.com/canadas-ominous-bills-that-would-make-orwell-blush/
Because Bill C-9 is close to its final stages in the House of Commons, this is an important moment for citizens to speak up.
If you are concerned, consider respectfully contacting your own Member of Parliament and sharing your views. Elected officials are far more likely to take notice when citizens speak up.
Please also share this information with fellow Christians and others who care about freedom of conscience and expression in Canada.
Please continue to pray for Canada and for wisdom among our leaders.
Correspondence with MP David McGuinty
As mentioned above, I wrote to the Member of Parliament for Ottawa South, David McGuinty, to express my concerns about Bill C-9 and the broader legislative context affecting freedom of expression and religious teaching in Canada. For the sake of transparency and documentation, I am reproducing the full exchange below so that readers can see both the government’s response and my follow-up in its entirety.
1. Initial Letter to MP David McGuinty
December 3, 2025
Dear Mr. McGuinty,
I am writing to you as a constituent of Ottawa South and as a fellow Catholic who values the dignity of the human person, the freedom of conscience, and the moral obligation to safeguard truth in public life. These shared commitments move me to express my deep concern about Bill C9 and the broader legislative environment in which it appears.
Although the intention to curb genuine hate related offenses is understandable, Bill C9 introduces undefined and expansive categories of criminal expression that threaten core freedoms protected by the Charter. The bill could place ordinary Canadians at risk for quoting or teaching from their own sacred texts. Many passages in the Bible and other religious writings challenge modern cultural norms. Within their proper theological and historical context, these passages express moral truths. If the law treats these expressions as suspect or potentially criminal, then freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are weakened in practice even if they remain on paper.
My recent article, which I respectfully invite you to read, explains in detail how Bill C9 is linked to a wider pattern evident in Bills C2 or C12 depending on the new numbering, C8, and C63. I argue that these bills together form a coherent legislative trajectory that expands state authority over speech, limits open democratic discourse, and reduces the space in which Canadians can disagree without fear of penalty. None of these bills can be viewed in isolation. Their combined effect poses a serious challenge to the health of our democracy and to the freedoms that allow a pluralistic society to flourish.
Canada’s Ominous Bills That Would Make Orwell Blush:
https://scottventureyra.com/canadas-ominous-bills-that-would-make-orwell-blush/
In light of these concerns, I ask that you weigh the following points carefully:
• Canadians must remain free to interpret, teach, and discuss their sacred texts without fear of criminal prosecution
• Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are interdependent and must be protected with vigilance
• Broad or vague legal categories inevitably lead to overreach, selective enforcement, and chilled speech
• When considered together, Bills C2/C12, C8, C63, and C9 represent a significant shift in how the federal government approaches expression, oversight, and civic participation
• For the sake of democratic integrity, these bills require critical scrutiny and, where necessary, firm opposition
As your constituent and as a fellow Catholic, I appeal to the moral principles we share. The Catholic tradition teaches that the state must respect the primacy of conscience and protect the freedoms that allow citizens to pursue truth. I hope you will raise these concerns in caucus and in Parliament and give full attention to the risks these bills pose to the pluralistic and democratic character of Canada.
Thank you for your service to Ottawa South and for taking the time to consider my perspective. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
2. Response from MP David McGuinty
December 16, 2025
Dear Dr. Ventureyra,
Thank you for your email regarding 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.
With respect to concerns about the repeal of section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, sometimes called the “good faith” religious exemption defence, 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Office of Hon. David McGuinty, P.C., M.P., Ottawa South
3. My Follow-Up Response
December 2025
Dear Mr. McGuinty,
Thank you for your detailed response to my earlier correspondence regarding Bill C-9 and the proposed amendments to section 319 of the Criminal Code. I appreciate the care taken to explain the government’s position and to reaffirm its stated commitment to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Since my initial email, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a formal letter to the federal government expressing concern about the repeal of section 319(3)(b), commonly referred to as the religious text or good faith defence. Their intervention closely aligns with the concerns I raised, particularly regarding legal uncertainty and the potential chilling effect on religious teaching and expression. I believe their perspective merits serious consideration.
Developments in the parliamentary process since October have further underscored these concerns. The decision to proceed with removing the religious speech defence has heightened unease among faith communities and legal observers who note that this change alters the practical legal environment in which religious expression occurs. Even where constitutional protections remain intact, the absence of an explicit statutory safeguard makes it more difficult for clergy, educators, and ordinary believers to know with confidence how the law will be applied in real-world situations.
The core issue here is not whether the Charter protects freedom of religion in principle, but whether removing a clear statutory safeguard introduces practical risks for faith communities in everyday life. Statutory protections play a distinct and important role alongside constitutional guarantees. They provide clarity to citizens, signal legislative intent, guide prosecutorial discretion, and help prevent harm before charges are ever laid.
The argument that the religious text defence has never been successfully used does not render it redundant. Its primary function is preventative, not remedial. Its existence reassures religious communities, constrains overreach at the investigative and charging stages, and reduces the likelihood that clergy, educators, or ordinary believers will feel compelled to self censor out of fear of legal exposure. Most Canadians do not have the means to rely on Charter litigation as their primary safeguard, particularly when the damage often occurs long before a case reaches court.
In my October article, I outline how Bill C-9 forms part of a broader legislative trajectory that includes Bills C2 or C12, C8, and C63. I argue that none of these measures should be assessed in isolation. Taken together, they expand state authority over speech, expression, and civic participation in ways that warrant careful scrutiny. Even if each bill is defensible on its own terms, their cumulative effect raises serious questions about democratic health, legal clarity, and public trust.
For ease of reference, the article is available here:
https://scottventureyra.com/canadas-ominous-bills-that-would-make-orwell-blush/
The bishops’ warning is not rooted in alarmism, but in prudence. They are rightly concerned about the downstream consequences of legislative changes that may unintentionally restrict the space for good faith religious teaching, moral discourse, and open democratic debate. Retaining explicit statutory protections, or providing equally clear legislative assurances, would better serve pluralism and social cohesion than relying solely on abstract constitutional guarantees.
I respectfully ask that you reconsider whether repealing section 319(3)(b) is necessary, and whether maintaining such a safeguard might better reflect Canada’s long standing commitment to religious freedom in both law and practice. Matters touching the freedom of conscience and religion ultimately call for personal moral judgment, even where this may require thoughtful independence from prevailing party positions.
Thank you again for your response and for your service to our community. I would welcome further engagement on this matter.
With best wishes to you and your staff for a Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year,
Scott D. G. Ventureyra, Ph.D.