Culture Minister Marc Miller says he supports eliminating the long-standing religious exemption in Canada’s hate speech laws, signalling a shift in the federal government’s approach as debate intensifies over the Liberal hate-crime bill, C-9. Speaking to reporters on Parliament Hill on Tuesday, Miller said he does not believe anyone should be able to rely on the Bible, Qur’an, Torah or any scripture as a justification for what would otherwise qualify as criminal hate speech.
Miller, who chaired the House of Commons justice committee until rejoining cabinet this week, emphasized that he was offering a personal view and that any final decision will fall to the committee and the government. His comments came after the Bloc Québécois said it had secured Liberal support for an amendment to remove the exemption, following a report by the National Post suggesting the two parties struck a deal tied to progress on Bill C-9.
Justice Minister Sean Fraser previously told MPs he was open to studying the change, saying the committee should hear from witnesses and that he saw no issue with removing the exemption if the majority agreed. Fraser’s office declined to say whether the government has formally agreed to the Bloc amendment, instead framing the issue as hypothetical because a Conservative filibuster prevented the committee from debating changes to the bill earlier this fall.
The justice committee resumed clause-by-clause review of C-9 on Tuesday, reviving a contentious discussion over the limits of freedom of expression and religion in Canadian law. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre quickly announced his party would oppose the amendment, calling it an attack on religious liberty and free speech.
The Criminal Code currently allows a defence for the wilful promotion of hatred if the accused “in good faith” expressed a religious opinion or an argument rooted in a sacred text. Yet legal experts say the clause has rarely, if ever, played a meaningful role in court. Richard Moon, professor emeritus at the University of Windsor and an expert on constitutional rights, said he is unaware of any case in which the exemption led to an acquittal. He suggested its existence is more symbolic than practical, noting that hate speech prosecutions in Canada are already rare and tightly limited.
Moon explained that only extreme forms of expression — such as describing a group as subhuman, inherently violent, or calling for their destruction — meet the Criminal Code threshold. He said most religiously based views, even if discriminatory, do not rise to that level. And in the exceptional cases where speech is so extreme, he questioned whether citing scripture should make any difference in the eyes of the law.
Debate over the exemption underscores broader uncertainty about Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act, which has become stalled in Parliament amid procedural delays and political disagreements. The Bloc’s amendment adds another flashpoint to a bill that has already exposed deep ideological divides over the balance between protecting vulnerable communities and safeguarding constitutional freedoms.
The discussion is set to continue as committee work resumes, and the government weighs whether to formally back a change that would mark a significant shift in Canada’s approach to prosecuting hate speech — and spark an even louder national debate over religion, rights, and the limits of expression.