Bill C-9 was introduced during Canada’s 45th Parliament on September 24, 2025. Sponsored by Sean Fraser, the Liberal Member of Parliament and Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the bill is titled, “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).”

As of January 4, 2026, Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, remains under review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in the House of Commons, with no further progress reported since its consideration in committee meetings through November 2025. The bill, introduced in September 2025, aims to strengthen protections against hate crimes and intimidation by creating new criminal offences related to obstructing access to religious, cultural, and educational spaces, as well as banning the public display of hate symbols. A major point of contention has been the proposed removal of the “good faith” religious exemption, which would allow individuals to defend expressions rooted in religious belief from being classified as willfully promoting hatred. This amendment, approved by the committee, has sparked significant concern among faith and civil-liberties groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, who argue it risks criminalizing protected religious expression and peaceful protest.

• The bill proposes four new criminal offences: intimidation to impede access to protected spaces, intentional obstruction of lawful access, a new hate crime offence, and a prohibition on displaying hate or terrorist symbols in public.
• The definition of “hatred” in the bill aligns with Supreme Court precedents, specifying it as involving “detestation or vilification” rather than mere dislike or offense.
• Despite government claims that the bill preserves Charter freedoms, critics argue that the broad language, particularly around intent to provoke fear, could lead to subjective enforcement and disproportionately impact racialized and religious minorities.
• Humanist and secular groups have not been explicitly mentioned in the provided context, but the broader civil-liberties opposition to the bill’s potential chilling effect on free expression may resonate with humanist values emphasizing rational discourse and freedom of thought.

Also on January 4, 2026, Humanist Heritage Canada conducted a brief survey of several of Canada’s leading humanist and secularist organizations and found very little to draw conclusions regarding what these organizations may think about the bill.

One organization that can be relied-up to publish some kind of statement regarding relevant proposed legislation, BC Humanists, circulated their three-page brief regarding the bill dated November 17, 2025. The organizations stated that, “the new criminal code offenses risk silencing religious dissent…While supportive of efforts to combat hate and bigotry, the BCHA warns the current bill instead privileges religious institutions and threatens civil liberties.…We do not believe the government has struck the right balance with Bill C-9.”

We will continue to monitor the published statements of Canadian humanist organizations for indications of what their positions might be. Until that time, we will have to conclude that they don’t actually have any. When and if any further information is received, we’ll update this article.

In the meantime, it is OUR position that Canadian humanists should make themselves aware of the legislation by actually reading it, and then following-up by reading the published statements of various organizations that may be wholly or partially for and against the bill. Here are a few places to start:

• Canadian Labour Congress: The version of the Bill being debated in the House of Commons has the potential to infringe on our hard fought-for rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association with little to no oversight.  (Dec 12, 2025)
• 50 Briefs Submitted to Parliament: Canadian Buddhist Temples and CoHNA Canada (Coalition of Hindus of North America)…”certain wording in the bill may create unintended legal and enforcement risks for religious communities that use the ancient and sacred symbol… which predates the Nazi emblem by millennia. Our concern is focused on ensuring that Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain communities are not inadvertently criminalized or targeted due to misinterpretation of their religious emblem....exemptions are defences raised after investigation”
• Justice Centre For Constitutional Freedoms: Criminalizing emotions does not reduce crime…Bill C-9 repeals the current requirement that the Attorney General consent to prosecutions for hate propaganda offences. This crucial safeguard promotes a proper public-interest assessment that considers, among other things, the Charter’s protection of free expression. The removal of this review process will result in more Canadians being prosecuted over what they say on social media and elsewhere. (November 2025)
• Canadian Bar Association: There are concerns that despite the protective intent behind hate offence legislation, its application may produce unintended consequences, particularly in light of the historical over-policing of marginalized communities (November 3, 2025).

AI Disclosure

This article was drafted using a process that included artificial intelligence tools. If you have any stylistic concerns or find any factual errors or omissions, please let us know.

Up For Discussion

If you’re interested in analyzing and discussing this issue, there are actions you can take. First, here at Humanist Heritage Canada (Humanist Freedoms), we are open to receiving your well-written articles.

Second, we encourage you to visit the New Enlightenment Project’s (NEP) Facebook page and discussion group.

Citations, References And Other Reading

1. Featured Photo Courtesy of: https://www.ourcommons.ca/en
2. https://www.bchumanist.ca/bill_c_9_strikes_the_wrong_balance
3. https://canadianlabour.ca/protecting-fundamental-rights-our-concerns-with-bill-c-9/

---

The views, opinions and analyses expressed in the articles on Humanist Freedoms are those of the contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the publishers.