Author: Lesly N Zeusseu
TL;DR
Bill C-9, officially known as the Combatting Hate Act, is a federal bill introduced in September 2025 to strengthen Canada’s response to hate-motivated crimes and intimidation. While its goal is to better protect communities targeted by hate, many civil society and community groups warn that parts of the bill could unintentionally undermine fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, peaceful protest, and assembly. The debate around Bill C-9 highlights a critical question: how do we combat hate effectively while remaining faithful to constitutional rights and democratic values?
- What is Bill C-9 and what does it propose? (Source: Department of Justice Canada)
Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act, was introduced in Parliament as a response to a rise in hate-motivated incidents across Canada, including threats, vandalism, and acts of violence targeting religious, racialized, and other identifiable communities. According to the government, existing legal tools are no longer sufficient to address the evolving forms of hate being expressed in public spaces, and the Criminal Code must be updated to better protect those most at risk. At its core, Bill C-9 proposes a significant expansion of Canada’s criminal law framework dealing with hate propaganda, hate-motivated crimes, and access to religious and cultural spaces. The bill amends the Criminal Code with the stated goal of strengthening protections for individuals and communities targeted by hate, while giving law enforcement additional tools to intervene earlier and more decisively (Department of Justice Canada, 2025).
(Source: Parliament of Canada, 2025)
One of the bill’s central features is the creation of new criminal offences related to intimidation and obstruction. Bill C-9 would make it a crime to intentionally intimidate or obstruct someone in a way that prevents them from accessing certain spaces, including places of worship. The bill also introduces a new stand-alone hate crime offence. Under Bill C-9, any federal offence committed and motivated by hatred toward an identifiable group would be treated as a distinct hate crime. In addition, Bill C-9 proposes a new offence targeting the public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols when done with the intent of promoting hatred. Finally, Bill C-9 removes the long-standing requirement that the Attorney General consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid.
- Why is Bill C-9 sparking debate?
While many agree that combating hate is urgent and necessary, Bill C-9 has quickly become a source of significant debate and concern. Legal associations, civil organizations, and community groups have raised questions not about the importance of addressing hate, but about how the bill proposes to do so and what the broader consequences might be. For many, the concern is that the bill expands the reach of criminal law in ways that could unintentionally undermine fundamental rights and freedoms (Canadian Bar Association, 2025).
Critics argue that Bill C-9’s proposed definition of “hatred,” while drawn from case law, removes key qualifiers related to intensity and extremity. As a result, they worry that the legal threshold for criminalizing speech could be lowered, increasing the risk that lawful expression, particularly political, religious, or social commentary, could become subject to investigation or prosecution. In addition, several groups have raised concerns about the vagueness and subjectivity of the bill’s language. Terms such as “hatred,” “intimidation,” “obstruction,” and “interference” are broad and not always clearly defined. This lack of precision raises questions about how the law would be applied in practice and whether enforcement could vary widely depending on interpretation. These concerns are particularly serious when it comes to the bill’s new offences related to intimidation and obstruction of access to certain spaces. While the goal of ensuring that people can safely access places of worship, schools, and community centres is widely shared, civil society organizations have cautioned that the current wording could unintentionally capture peaceful protest or assembly. The Charter guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, and for many marginalized communities, protest is a crucial means of expressing dissent and challenging power imbalances. Although the bill includes an exception stating that merely communicating information near these spaces does not constitute an offence, critics argue that this clarification is insufficient and that the boundaries of criminal liability remain unclear (Canadian Labour Congress, 2025).
“Bill C-9 risks criminalizing peaceful protests near tens of thousands of locations in Canada. In doing so, this Bill would disproportionately harm the very communities it purports to protect. We urge the government to reverse course on Bill C-9.” Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Another major point of contention is the removal of the requirement for Attorney General consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid. Historically, this requirement has functioned as an important safeguard, helping to prevent arbitrary, selective, or politically motivated prosecutions. By removing this layer of oversight, Bill C-9 shifts greater discretion to police and prosecutors. Civil liberties groups warn that this change increases the risk of inconsistent enforcement and may disproportionately affect racialized and equity-deserving communities, who have historically experienced higher levels of surveillance and policing of their expression.
As a result of these concerns, many civil society organizations, including legal and human rights groups, have called on the federal government to reconsider Bill C-9 in its current form (Canadian Civil Liberties Association, 2025). Their call is not to abandon the fight against hate, but to strengthen the bill by clarifying its definitions, restoring safeguards, and complement criminal law with community-based, preventive approaches that address the root causes of hate without compromising fundamental rights. In their view, a law intended to protect vulnerable communities should not inadvertently weaken the constitutional freedoms that those same communities rely on to advocate, organize, and seek justice.
- Moving forward: Combating hate without eroding rights
There is no question that hate is real, harmful, and must be confronted. Communities across Canada, including Black communities, continue to experience discrimination, violence, and exclusion in both overt and subtle forms. Acts of hate do not occur in a vacuum; they have real consequences for people’s safety, dignity, and sense of belonging. At the same time, how we respond to hate matters. Criminal law is one of the most powerful tools available. When it expands into areas involving expression, belief, protest, and assembly, it must do so with precision and clear constitutional safeguards. As the debate around Bill C-9 continues, Canadians are being asked to reflect on a difficult but essential balance: how to protect communities from hate while preserving the constitutional freedoms that underpin a democratic, inclusive, and just society. Addressing hate requires not only accountability, but also a commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms that allow communities, especially those most affected by injustice, to be heard.
Update (January 28, 2026): As of January 26, 2026, the federal government has paused Bill C-9. The Justice Committee has suspended its review of the bill amid growing opposition and concerns.
Want to learn more?
