After passing third reading in the Senate, we expect Bill C-9 will soon become law.  

But it must first return to the House of Commons, which must decide whether to accept or reject the sole amendment to the bill that was made in the Senate. 

On June 1, the Senate Committee on Human Rights wrapped up its study of Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act. That Committee adopted a few amendments, but the Senate as a whole rejected those amendments. On June 4, the Senate adopted a new amendment, adding “noose” to the list of hate symbols, and passed the bill.  

The Senate ultimately did nothing to address free speech concerns about the bill.  

Good Faith Religious Defence 

The removal of the good faith religious defence to the crime of promoting hatred has rightly been the focus of criticism from religious groups across the country. In ARPA’s written submission to the Senate Committee, we argued that there is no evidence to justify removing the religious defence and that doing so threatens Christians’ freedom to express their religious convictions. Many other organizations likewise articulated the importance of maintaining the religious defence. 

Several Senators commented on the volume of communication they have received in support of the religious defence. ARPA is grateful for the efforts of all of you who reached out.  

Even so, the Human Rights Committee narrowly defeated a proposed amendment by Senator Yonah Martin to reinstate the religious defence. Three Senators supported reinstating that defence, four opposed it, and three abstained. 

At third reading, Senator Martin did not attempt to reinstate the good faith religious defence again but rather sought to amend the clarification clause by which the government affirmed its support for religious freedom. Her amendment sought to remove the circular reasoning in that clause and reinstate the words “in good faith.” That amendment was defeated by a vote of 40-21.  

Criminalizing Residential School Denialism 

Bill C-9 was amended at Committee to include a new criminal prohibition: “Everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous Peoples by condoning, denying or downplaying the Indian Residential Schools System [is guilty of an offence.].” 

Canadian law already prohibits promoting Antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust. The residential school amendment was modelled on that prohibition. 

Some Senators commented that some people who attended residential schools deny the prevailing narrative about how harmful they were. After all, many details about residential schools are debated, even among Indigenous people who were affected. 

Canadians have different perspectives regarding residential schools. Some consider the system to be a form of “cultural genocide”, while others object to such a characterization. Various scholars offer at least partial defences of the residential school system.  

Canadians should be permitted to disagree on topics like residential schools. Free speech allows people to engage in lively debate, to be wrong, and to challenge and correct one another so that the truth may become clear. 

As One First Nation Chief remarked, “truth is not partisan. It does not belong to activists, governments, journalists, political parties or critics. Truth requires humility from everyone. It requires us to follow evidence even when it complicates our preferred story … Canada should resist the temptation to criminalize questions, especially when the subject is politically charged.” 

Of course, simply disputing facts or opinions would not necessarily be criminalized if such an amendment became law. There remains a relatively high bar for comments about residential schools to amount to wilfully promoting hatred against indigenous people, although the law around what constitutes hate speech has its own problems (see ARPA’s submission to the House of Commons on C-9).  

Still, this amendment implicitly takes a side in a legitimate debate (regarding the nature, purpose, and impact of residential schools) and could be used to stifle one side of that debate.  

If the Criminal Code prohibits downplaying residential schools, why not criminalize downplaying other horrible events or circumstances? What about criminalizing downplaying the experience of the Japanese during WWII internment? Or persecution of Christians in China, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.?  

Notably, this amendment was opposed by Senators who belong to the Government Representative Office – meaning they help manage government bills as they go through the Senate. They noted the lack of consultation with Indigenous people and the need to address residential school denialism in the right way. So this amendment was defeated before the bill moved to 3^rd reading.  

Moving Forward 

As Christians, we recognize that promoting hatred or ill-will towards anyone by speaking falsely or maliciously about them is a grave sin. We confess in the Heidelberg Catechism that: 

“I must not give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor condemn or join in condemning anyone rashly and unheard. Rather, I must avoid all lying and deceit as the devil’s own works under penalty of God’s wrath. In court and everywhere else, I must love the truth, speak and confess it honestly, and do what I can to defend and promote my neighbour’s honour and reputation.” 

The danger in Bill C-9 and in the attempted residential school amendment is not that it could be used to prohibit the deliberate spreading of damning falsehoods about certain groups of people. Rather, it is that it could stifle debate on controversial but important issues, such as whether homosexual sex is unhealthy and immoral, or whether Islam threatens Western civilization, or whether “cultural genocide” is an appropriate label for the residential school system. 

What’s Next? 

Now that the Senate has completed third reading of Bill C-9, the House of Commons will review the sole Senate amendment ((to add the noose to the list of prohibited symbols). The House of Commons can reject or accept that amendment.   

At this late stage, the House of Commons would not normally reconsider other parts of the bill that were not amended in the Senate.  A special motion to suspend the ordinary rules would have to be passed to reopen debates on other parts of the bill. This would be unusual and unlikely, but not impossible. 

The government did not originally plan to remove the religious defence through Bill C-9. That was a compromise they made with the Bloc Quebecois in order to pass their legislation. But they no longer need the Bloc’s support to pass Bill C-9.  

The government was also sensitive to Canadians’ concerns about the removal of the religious defence when Bill C-9 was before the House of Commons. We encourage you to communicate with your Members of Parliament again and urge them to amend the bill to protect religious freedom.