QUESTION PERIOD — Ministry of Justice
Criminal Code Amendments
May 28, 2026
Welcome to the Senate, minister.
Since Bill C-9 came to the Senate, we’ve received a lot of emails, letters, cards and messages from people concerned about religious freedom. Even a man I respect a great deal, Cardinal Leo of Toronto, has asked Parliament to rethink the issue. Can you reassure the members of all religious groups, churches and other denominations that the intention is by no means to limit religious freedom?
Yes, certainly.
Many of you may not appreciate that I grew up in a Catholic family. I read Scripture in church every week until I moved away from home. The messages of peace, love and acceptance, baked into the world’s great religions, are messages I think governments can learn from and help promote.
To be clear, Bill C-9, from its very inception, was designed to promote religious freedom in Canada. We were deeply concerned about the intimidation and obstruction for peace-loving citizens of this country being denied the opportunity to practise their faith and to participate fully in the communities of faith to which they belong and which they cherish.
The decision to move forward with a change in terms of how the religious exemption operates was not something baked into the government’s proposal at the outset, but became essential in order to preserve the protections I’ve just discussed that were in the bill as a result of dealings that took place at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, independent of my office, of course, on the House of Commons side of Parliament.
We have made progress, in my view, to ensure we establish protections in the definition of hatred, which not only sets a high standard but clarifies beyond doubt that the practice of your faith, the ability to read Scripture, would not constitute a hate crime.
It is not possible, in my view, to commit a hate crime in good faith. To the extent that we can ensure there is language in the bill —
Thank you, minister.
If I understand you well, you say the definition of the crime makes it unnecessary to have what we used to have as a defence. Am I reading that correctly?
Even more than that — philosophically, I believe it is stronger. The previous iteration of the defence would have suggested that the behaviour people may be concerned with was a hate crime to begin with, for which a defence was needed.
In my view, it would be a more accurate reflection of the government’s intent to recognize that the practice of faith is not a hate crime in the first place that a defence is required for.
I want to take this opportunity to thank members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who have been sitting outside of normal hours and outside of sitting weeks to advance these important pieces of legislation.
Through the rigorous work on both the House and the Senate side, I believe we can get to a place where the intent of the government to protect religious freedom in this country is realized, without fear that there will be unintended consequences for the ability to practise one’s faith in this country.
