A defining moment for religious freedom in Canada
By Lethbridge Herald on April 4, 2026.
FROM THE HILL-MP RACHAEL THOMAS
Religious freedom has long been a cornerstone of Canada’s identity and a key part of its global appeal. For generations, people from around the world have chosen to build their lives here in pursuit of the freedom to practice their faith openly and without fear.
In the late 19th century, Jewish families fled Europe and came to Canada seeking refuge from religious persecution. Between 1919 and 1939, many Ukrainians made the same journey, escaping both religious and political oppression. More recently, Iranian Christians have arrived in Canada in search of the same fundamental freedom. These stories are not isolated. They are part of a broader pattern that has helped shape Canada into the country it is today.
As a result, religious freedom is not just a principle we uphold; it is deeply woven into our national fabric.
Yet today, that freedom is increasingly under pressure. The Liberal government, under Prime Minister Carney, has introduced Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act. While its title may sound reassuring, the reality is that the legislation risks doing more harm than good.
Bill C-9 strips away long-standing religious protections and opens the door for Canadians of faith to face criminal consequences simply for expressing beliefs rooted in their own sacred texts.
Until now, sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) of the Criminal Code have provided a clear safeguard: individuals could not be prosecuted for the willful promotion of hate if they were expressing, in good faith, an opinion on a religious subject or speaking from a sincerely held belief grounded in scripture.
These weren’t loopholes, they were deliberate protections. In fact, even the Supreme Court has affirmed that such defences are essential to preserving the constitutionality of Canada’s hate speech laws, precisely because freedom of expression and freedom of religion are foundational rights.
Despite the clear legal and constitutional realities, the Liberals have chosen to press ahead and remove these protections. Rather than focusing on the real drivers of crime, like their failed, soft-on-crime, catch-and-release policies, they are doubling down on a path that risks silencing lawful, good-faith expression.
It’s no surprise Canadians have taken notice and are raising their voices in a way that is rarely seen.
From coast to coast, people of all faiths have spoken out—writing, calling, and showing up in remarkable numbers. The offices of MPs have been flooded with concerns about this bill. It’s been a powerful display of civic engagement from Canadians who simply want their fundamental freedoms respected.
And yet, those voices have been ignored.
With the support of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP, Bill C-9 passed the House of Commons on Wednesday, March 25, and is now before the Senate.
But this is not the end of the process.
Many people have reached out to my office to ask what can be done. Now, the focus turns to the Senate, where Canadians still have a voice. The same energy we’ve seen across the country can and should be directed there.
Canadians have already made a significant impact. Conservative MPs brought their concerns directly to the floor of the House of Commons, holding the government to account and pushing for change. We were able to stop the Liberals from watering down the legal definition of hate, an amendment that would have created even more ambiguity and further chilled free expression.
That’s a meaningful win.
And it proves something important: when Canadians speak up, it makes a difference.
While many are understandably concerned, there is still reason for hope. This bill has not yet become law. We are still in a democracy, and the process is not over.
Now is the time to stay engaged.
Canadians can write, call, and reach out to Senators, particularly the Government Representative in the Senate, Pierre Moreau, to make their views known. He can be reached here: pierre.moreau@sen.parl.gc.ca . These messages don’t need to be long or complicated. A simple note, “Please stand up for religious freedom and reject Bill C-9,” is enough.
As former Prime Minister Stephen Harper once said: “There are no permanent governments in a democracy. That means that anything can be built upon. It means that anything can be undone. And it also means that eventually anything can be restored.”
That’s not just a quote, it’s a reminder. A reminder that in Canada, the voice of the people still matters.
25-24
The new law removes the exception for hate speech based upon religious belief. What are some good examples of hate speech that you would like to say, write, or display that you think are justified by your religion?
Yes, I think Rach makes it perfectly clear why this legislation is appropriate and important.
Canada should be proud of its efforts to include a diversity of cultures and foster equality of opportunity for all citizens. Hiding behind texts written three millennia ago to promote hate is reprehensible.
Try reading Leviticus, Romans or Deuteronomy for information on the “sin” of homosexuality. Screaming those texts from the pulpit both currently and historically is presumably acceptable in the mind of Thomas. Her self – righteous infatuation with “crime” would come at the expense of protecting “sinful” activities such as gay relationships – a recurring theme of her columns. Currently one of Trump’s henchmen, one Pete Hegseth, is quoting scriptures (Psalms) supposedly supporting the idea of a righteous war against infidels. The Pope by contrast condemns such speech. Now tell me, which is correct? The former would be protected under the dictates of Thomas.
They’re calling the good Christian Hegseth the ‘U.S. Secretary of War Crimes’.
The victims of this sort of worldview need protection.
Our ghost member reappears to say that hate speech is ok when it’s based on one’s religion or printed in one’s bible.
Ms. Thomas:
Despite the many issues surrounding Bill C-9 and expressed by various groups across Canada, you are willfully misrepresenting the focus of this Bill. An excerpt on the matter from the Canadian Labour Congress presents the overall concerns within the Bill:
“…serious concerns about Bill C-9. Without amendment, it will undermine core democratic rights and expand state powers in ways that put workers and marginalized communities at risk.
Bill C-9 makes it easier for the state to prosecute people by expanding discretionary police powers and removing the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent. Without amendment, it will lower the bar for criminal charges and give law enforcement wide authority with little oversight.
This opens the door to the criminalization of peaceful protest and collective action. Without amendment, it will disproportionately impact Indigenous, Black, and racialized communities.
For workers, the threat is clear. The Charter protects the right to strike — yet without amendment, Bill C-9 will erode this right, making certain legal job actions a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. This is a direct attack on organized labour and freedom of association.
The Bill’s broad and vague language compounds these risks. Without amendment, it will grant sweeping powers without accountability, putting free expression, peaceful assembly, and democratic participation in danger.
We all want to stop hate crimes and keep people safe in their communities. But Bill C-9, without amendment, will not do that. Instead, it will weaken the very freedoms that keep people safe — the right to speak out, to organize, and to participate fully in society.”
Ms. Thomas, your attempt to frame the discussion around “religious freedom” (implicitly Christian religious freedom with the Bible as a prop stunt in the House of Commons) is disingenuous and fails to address the many concerns associated with Bill C-9.
Please do better in representing your constituents.
Ms. Thomas fails to give an example of how the new law might impact religious freedom. Perhaps she is reluctant to at this moment in history, now that we see the calls from American Christians to kill for the glory of God. Is this the type of speech she means to defend?
She has spoken in support of the use of the notwithstanding clause to suppress religious freedom in Quebec. Perhaps it’s OK if religions she dislikes are targeted.
A reminder from the Bard: “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.An evil soul producing holy witnessIs like a villain with a smiling cheek,A goodly apple rotten at the heart.”