You’ve probably heard about Bill C-9. I recently saw a post from a political influencer south of the border who said that Canada had “banned the Bible.”

Sounds pretty dramatic. But is it true? Or is it political posturing? Is it fear-mongering? Is it government over-reach? Is it click bait? Is it the beast? Is it based in reality?

To explain, let me back up a bit. And as you read or listen to this, please keep in mind that I’m not a lawyer. I’m a pastor.

What Does The Bill Say?

Here’s the full title of the Bill: “Bill C-9: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).” It is sometimes referred to as the Combatting Hate Act.

The Canadian Justice Department provides this summary: “Bill C-9 would amend the Criminal Code to propose new offences to better protect access to religious, cultural and other specified places, and to address hate-motivated crimes.”

I’m going to unpack this a little bit a time. I’m then going to explain the reason this Bill was proposed in the first place—after all, these things don’t tend to get proposed in a vacuum. Finally, I’ll share whether or not I think there is any sort of real threat to our faith or freedoms in Canada.

The Justice Department provides the following explanation. Keep in mind that government jargon can be a bit thick, so let’s read it slowly:

“The proposed amendments in the Bill would create four new criminal offences:

(1) an intimidation offence that prohibits conduct that is intended to provoke a state of fear in another person to impede them from accessing religious or cultural institutions and other specified places;

(2) an offence that prohibits the intentional obstruction of a person’s lawful access to such places;

(3) a hate crime offence to more explicitly denounce hate-motivated crime; and

(4) an offence that prohibits wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place, certain hate or terrorist symbols.”

Why Was This Introduced In The First Place?

The Bill was proposed by the governing Liberals. As I mentioned earlier, these things don’t tend to materialize in a vacuum. Hate crimes are on the rise in Canada. More specifically, the Bill was proposed to protect people in the Jewish community in Quebec from harassment by some Muslim extremists.

In Montreal, an imam (the Muslim equivalent of a pastor or rabbi) called for the extermination of “Zionist aggressors” during a public prayer service. That phrase is sometimes used to speak about perceived Israeli imperialism, and then carelessly applied to all Jews no matter where they live or what they believe.

So far, the bill sounds pretty reasonable. So, what’s the problem?

Removal of the Good Faith Defense

From what I’ve seen, most of the concern has to do with the removal of the “good faith” defense. This refers to when someone expresses an opinion based on a religious subject, or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. For example, if I am teaching about subject X and someone accuses me of a hate crime, there is an exemption for me because I am teaching about a religious text and am doing so “in good faith”—i.e. with a sincere desire to explain and not with the intent to cause harm.

If the good faith exemption is removed, it means that it can be easier to accuse someone of promoting hatred. This is concerning in a culture like ours where religious views are often in the minority, and increasingly unpopular. Could Bill C-9 be used to suppress or silence religious voices that don’t go along with the majority view?

Let me provide a more specific example. If I am teaching about Genesis 2:24 or Matthew 19:5 where Jesus speaks about marriage between a man and a woman, if the good faith exemption is removed, could I be convicted of hate by saying that God’s design for marriage is between one man and one woman? To quote the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada who has been closely monitoring the Bill: “The proposal to remove the good faith religious belief defence is being put on the table at a time when minority religious beliefs on marriage, sexuality and gender are increasingly marginalized and frequently described as hateful.”[i]

I’ve heard it argued that this is not the intent of the Bill. Perhaps. But a law is made up of words, not the intentions of someone sitting in an office somewhere.

A Shield or a Sword?

My colleague Paul Carter asks if the bill is a shield or a sword.[ii] That’s a good way for us to think through how it may have been intended versus how it may actually be used. We have been told that it is intended to be a shield for persecuted minority groups, but could it be used as a sword by those in the majority who want to silence religious voices that disagree with their own? Only time will tell.

Removal of Attorney General Sign-Off

From what I understand, there is also another concern. As it currently stands, a provincial attorney general needs to sign-off on a charge about a hate crime before it is brought forward. However, the Bill proposes to remove this too, making it possible for local law enforcement or a private individual to bring forward such a charge, even when their charge may be unreasonable. This could make accusations more frequent and disruptive, regardless of whether they have any valid basis.

Definition of “Hate”

Further, there’s a concern with the definition of “hate.” In an online petition created in January 2026, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada expressed concern about the definition and encouraged the government to change course and adopt the language of the Supreme Court in the Keegstra decision. There, hatred means an emotion “of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation… predicated on destruction… that belies reason.”

The Christian Legal Fellowship has also expressed concern about the Bill’s definition of hatred in the briefing they provided to the Canadian senate.[iii]

Should We Be Worried?

In light of all of this, should we be worried?

First, personally, I’m not terribly worried. Jesus encouraged us to trust God day-by-day. No one knows what tomorrow will bring. One day, he will return and make all things new. Until then, we keep moving forward as his hands and feet.

Second, if the Bill is used as a shield, then it may well be used for good. In fact, there are many things we can support in the Bill, such as access to spaces and the protection of minority groups from extremists. Christians began as a persecuted minority. Along with the Lord’s instruction to love others, this compels us to sympathize with those who may be vulnerable and to advocate for their well-being.

Third, if the Bill is used as a sword, then there may be problems. I think it’s unwise for the government to remove the good faith exemption, especially at a time when biblical views are increasingly unpopular.

Fourth, we should increasingly expect persecution for our beliefs. We’re not in Kansas anymore. As Jesus said in John 15:20: “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.” Brothers and sisters, we have backbones for a reason.

Lastly, let’s not get distracted. Instead, let’s be steadfast in grace and truth. Have courage, stand firm on the word of God, and love others quickly and deeply.

Our Collective Search for Truth

Let me end with this comment from the Christian Legal Fellowship. This is what they said in their submission to the Senate Committee on Human Rights:

It is through the open expression of our disagreement that we can show our concern and care for each other, by highlighting possible paths ...