Canada’s Parliament is advancing Bill C-9, the government’s “Combatting Hate Act,” which would amend the Criminal Code to add new offences tied to hate-motivated crimes, restrict certain hate or terrorism symbols displayed in public, and strengthen protections for access to religious or cultural places. The bill has passed the House of Commons and has been before the Senate, with final timing and the fate of Senate changes dependent on further parliamentary votes.
Bill C-9—formally titled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)—would make a series of changes to Canada’s hate-propaganda and hate-crime framework.
Among other measures, the bill would create an offence aimed at wilfully promoting hatred through the public display of certain symbols linked to a listed terrorist entity or otherwise defined as a “terrorism or hate symbol,” while providing defences for certain legitimate purposes such as journalism, education, religion, or art. It would also create a standalone “hate crime” offence for situations where an existing criminal offence is committed and the act is motivated by hatred against an identifiable group, and it would add or strengthen offences aimed at intimidation or obstruction of access to religious or cultural places.
The bill has drawn sharp debate over freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Critics including the Canadian Constitution Foundation have argued that proposed changes—particularly the removal of a long-standing Criminal Code defence related to expressing an opinion on a religious subject or belief in a religious text—could increase legal risk for religious expression depending on context and intent.
Supporters, including Sen. Kristopher Wells, the Senate sponsor of the bill, have said the legislation is meant to respond to rising hate and intimidation targeting vulnerable communities, including 2SLGBTQI+ people and religious minorities, while maintaining Charter protections.
Legal commentators cited in public debate have pointed to past Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on hate-speech limits as a sign courts may uphold key provisions if challenged, though constitutional litigation remains possible once the final text is enacted.