A proposed amendment to Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, will only create greater uncertainty, said Conservative MP Andrew Lawton.

The amendment is meant to address concerns about freedom of religious expression under the revised hate speech provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code.

During the Feb. 23 justice and human rights committee meeting, Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio tabled an amendment with “clarifying language.” She said it would address concerns raised “sincerely” by faith leaders, legal experts and civil society organizations.

Advertisement

Opposition to the bill materialized upon its introduction in September 2025. It mounted substantially, including from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and Toronto's Cardinal Frank Leo, once the government agreed to a Bloc Québécois amendment that repeals the religious speech defence from Section 319 of the Criminal Code.

The amendment reads that “nothing in subsection 319(2) or (2.2) shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not willfully promote hatred, hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.”

The core of this revision also extends to subsection 319(2.1). However, that provision specifically targets the willful promotion of anti-Semitism through statements that condone, deny or downplay the Holocaust.

Lattanzio claimed the religious speech defence, which had existed in law for over 50 years, created “interpretive ambiguity” and its removal through Bill C-9 will not change the high bar required for a willful promotion of hatred charge.

Advertisement

She said the “clause for greater certainty does not create a new defence, does not reintroduce the removed provision and does not narrow or broaden the offence. Its purpose is to make explicit in the legislation what the courts have long recognized: that genuine religious, academic, political or other good faith discussion on matters of public interest is not what this offence targets.”

Lawton said “this amendment does not actually seek to bolster any protections,” but instead “simply aims to say that none of this was at issue in the first place. So, for people who were raising concerns that Bill C-9 was eroding longstanding protections in criminal law, the government’s own admission right now about this amendment is that nothing is changing. They’re trying to pacify concerns without actually strengthening these protections in law.”

He specifically said the amendment is not providing any clarity or certainty. It is "circular reasoning at best,” and it will preserve the latitude for a hate charge to be brought against someone citing a religious text. He suggested repealing the “if they do not willfully promote” provisos in order to bolster protections.

Committee work was suspended before a full debate of Lawton’s proposed change. The group is scheduled to reconvene on Feb. 25.

Outside of procedural meeting questions, Bloc Québécois MP Rheal Fortin did not speak during the session, so it remains unclear whether or not his party approves of the “greater clarity” amendment introduced by Lattanzio. Party leader Yves-François Blanchet made it clear before the Christmas recess that repealing the narrow religious exemption safeguard is the price for voting support at third reading.

The main measures this act, if it becomes law, will put into effect are criminalizing intimidation and obstruction outside of establishments used by faith-based groups and banning the intentional flaunting of “certain terrorism or hate symbols in public.”

Advertisement

On Feb. 23, Blacklock’s Reporter reported on an internal Department of Justice memo that states criminal penalties would be extended to anyone obstructing Indigenous sacred sites — including areas identified as unmarked graves.

“It is the intention of the government that Indigenous peoples and their religious and cultural spaces received equal protections under Bill C-9,” stated a memo titled “Supplemental Questions And Answers.”