What amendments were proposed to Bill C-9 and how did they change the final text?

1. What the original Bill C-9 put on the books

The Justice Department’s Charter Statement and parliamentary summaries describe the core of the government’s bill: four new offences — an intimidation offence aimed at provoking fear to impede access to religious or cultural places, an obstruction offence to block lawful access to those places, a stand‑alone hate‑motivated offence that applies to offences driven by hatred, and a public‑display offence criminalizing willful promotion of hatred through certain hate or terrorist symbols in public — together with a statutory definition of “hatred” and other technical amendments to interception, DNA and bail schemes ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. How the bill said it would treat hateful expression and religious speech

The Justice Department wrote that the bill would add a definition of “hatred” modelled on Supreme Court jurisprudence and would clarify that communications are not incitement or hate solely because they discredit or offend, thereby seeking to balance section 2(b) freedom of expression concerns with the new offences; the Charter Statement explicitly flags that the proposed “hatred” definition can engage expressive rights even as it argues the text codifies settled case law ^{[1] [6]}.

3. The Bloc amendment that changed the text: removal of the religious exemption

While the government’s original draft did not initially eliminate the religious‑text defence in section 319(b), the Bloc Québécois conditioned its parliamentary support on striking that “good faith” religious exemption; committee members approved a Bloc amendment to remove the exemption during clause‑by‑clause review, a change picked up and confirmed by CBC, iPolitics, and other outlets ^{[7] [3] [8]}.

4. Immediate legal and political effects of removing the good‑faith religious defence

Removing section 319(b) would mean that expressions based “in good faith” on a religious text could no longer be an automatic defence to willful promotion of hatred charges under the Criminal Code; supporters argue that change closes a loophole used to shield extremist or dehumanizing rhetoric, while critics — including religious organizations and civil liberties commentators — warn it risks criminalizing theological interpretation and chills religious speech, concerns documented in submissions from faith groups and legal commentators ^{[9] [10] [11]}.

5. Other proposed amendments and procedural worries raised in reporting

Beyond the religious‑speech change, advocates and commentators flagged the bill’s broad language on “obstruction” and the statutory wording of “hatred” as potentially vague and a threat to free expression; the Canadian Bar Association and other reviewers urged clarifying amendments, and at least one opinion piece highlighted a separate worry that the bill could remove provincial attorney‑general sign‑off for hate‑crime prosecutions — an alteration presented as politically consequential though not central to the government’s Charter Statement ^{[11] [12] [7]}.

6. Where the final text stands and what remains uncertain

As committee amendments have been adopted, the bill’s substance now includes both the original package of new offences and the committee’s deletion of the good‑faith religious defence, but the bill still faces final House and Senate votes and possible further amendment; reporting shows the Liberals accepted the Bloc change to secure support but also asserted existing Charter safeguards and public‑interest exemptions would limit overreach — claims contested by opponents and highlighted in legal submissions and media analyses ^{[2] [8] [13]}.