A Canadian parliamentary committee has set in motion a change that could recast the balance between expression and state control over “hate speech.”

Members of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution.

The decision forms part of the government’s Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9), legislation that introduces new offences tied to “hate” and the public display of certain symbols.

The focus is on Section 319(3)(b), which currently ensures that “no person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

That safeguard would vanish if the Bloc Québécois amendment approved this month survives the remaining stages of debate.

Liberal MPs backed the Bloc’s proposal, which Bloc MP Rhéal Éloi Fortin introduced after his party leader, Yves-François Blanchet, made its passage a precondition for Bloc support of the bill.

Fortin argued that the religious exemption could permit “someone could commit actions or say things that would otherwise be forbidden under the Criminal Code.”

The amendment was adopted during a marathon session that came only after the committee chair, Liberal MP James Maloney, abruptly ended an earlier meeting and canceled the next one to allow MPs time to “regroup.”

On December 9, the committee returned for an eight-hour clause-by-clause review, with government members determined to complete key sections of the bill before the winter recess.

The broader legislation targets intimidation around religious institutions and bans the display of defined “hate” and “terrorism” symbols.

Yet most debate now centers on whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings.

As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”

That assurance was immediately challenged. Conservative MP Garnett Genuis warned that relying on constitutional guarantees alone offers no protection from poorly written laws. “(It’s) as if the existence of the Charter establishes some law of physics, which prevents legislation from passing that violates it,” said Genuis.

“That’s not how the Charter works. The way the Charter and constitutional protections on religious freedom and other rights work is that laws can still be passed to violate those rights, and those laws are enforced until they’re struck down until a judicial process intervenes.”

Fraser later posted on X that he would meet with community groups to emphasize that “good-faith religious expression will remain fully protected.”

Religious and civil rights organizations say the removal of Section 319(3)(b) would leave clergy and lay believers vulnerable to politically motivated complaints.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and Toronto’s Cardinal Frank Leo both submitted letters to Parliament acknowledging their rejection of hatred and prejudice but warning that removing the defense introduces “uncertainty for clergy, educators and all people of faith who seek to pass on the teachings of the Church with charity and integrity.”

The Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) also expressed unease.

The League noted that Bill C-9 also abolishes a separate requirement for the Attorney General’s consent before any hate-propaganda prosecution begins. Without that filter, it warned, the courts could become an instrument for harassment, removing the safeguard “will likely result in spurious or targeted attacks on individuals expressing Christian moral teachings.”

Together with the bishops, the CCRL said these “developments may create a climate of fear for good faith expressions of religious belief and expose Church and faith leaders to criminal charges by anyone seeking to pursue a charge to advance a non-religious viewpoint.”