Commons Debates Motion to Speed Up Combatting Hate Act Amid Free Speech Fears

The House of Commons is locked in one of its most contentious legislative battles in years. At the centre of the storm is Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act — a sweeping piece of criminal-law reform that the Liberal government says is needed to confront a surge in hate-motivated violence across Canada. But an extraordinary coalition of opponents — spanning Conservatives, the NDP, civil liberties organizations, faith leaders of every creed, labour unions, and legal scholars — warns the bill threatens the very freedoms it claims to protect [1][2][3].

In early March 2026, Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon tabled a motion to end a prolonged Conservative filibuster in the Justice Committee, fast-tracking the bill toward a final vote and setting the stage for a dramatic Commons showdown [6].

The Rise of Hate Crime in Canada

The political urgency behind Bill C-9 is grounded in alarming statistics. According to Statistics Canada, the rate of police-reported hate crime more than doubled between 2019 and 2023, surging 130% to reach 12.0 incidents per 100,000 population [5]. In 2023 alone, hate crimes rose 29% compared to the previous year. Hate crimes targeting gender identity or expression increased 37% in a single year and have more than doubled (+151%) since 2020 [5].

Online hate has tracked a similar trajectory. The number of cyber-related hate crimes rose from 92 reported incidents in 2018 to 219 in 2022, with 82% classified as violent — including uttering threats (36%) and indecent or harassing communications (29%) [5]. Black Canadians and those targeted based on sexual orientation each accounted for 17% of reported cyber-related hate crimes, followed by the Jewish community at 12% [5].

Source: Statistics Canada

Data as of Mar 25, 2025CSV

The catalyst for the bill's introduction in September 2025 was especially visceral: a string of shootings at Toronto-area synagogues that prompted Ottawa to pledge faster security funding and stronger legislative tools [6][14].

What Bill C-9 Would Do

Introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser, the Combatting Hate Act proposes several significant amendments to the Criminal Code [2][7]:

• Standalone hate-crime offence: Any federal offence committed with hatred toward an identifiable group would be treated as a distinct criminal charge, rather than hate serving solely as an aggravating factor at sentencing.
• Hate symbols prohibition: It would become a crime to wilfully promote hatred by publicly displaying terrorism or hate symbols.
• Access-to-spaces protection: Intimidating or obstructing people from accessing spaces primarily used by an identifiable group — including places of worship — would carry penalties of up to 10 years in prison.
• Codified definition of "hatred": The bill proposes a statutory definition drawn from case law, describing hatred as "stronger than disdain or dislike" — language critics say significantly lowers the existing threshold set by the Supreme Court of Canada [9].
• Removal of Attorney General consent: Currently, hate propaganda charges require approval from the Attorney General, a safeguard designed to prevent abuse. Bill C-9 would eliminate this requirement, allowing police to lay charges directly [3][9].

The Religious Exemption Flashpoint

No provision has generated more heat than an amendment, proposed by the Bloc Québécois and supported by Liberal MPs, to remove section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code — the so-called "good faith religious text" defence [8][10].

This long-standing provision protects individuals from criminal conviction for willful promotion of hatred if their statements were made "in good faith" and were based on an interpretation of a religious text. Though the exemption has never been successfully invoked in court to secure an acquittal, its symbolic and constitutional weight is enormous [9][10].

Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet reportedly struck a deal with the Liberals: in exchange for Bloc support for the broader bill, Liberal MPs would back the amendment stripping the religious defence [10]. The vote passed at committee level, triggering an immediate and fierce backlash.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops warned that removing the exemption creates "uncertainty for clergy, educators and all people of faith who seek to pass on the teachings of the Church with charity and integrity" [10]. Toronto Cardinal Frank Leo echoed those concerns, while Muslim, Jewish, and evangelical organizations issued a rare joint statement declaring that "Bill C-9 should not be passed" in its current form [11][12].

Christine Van Geyn of the Canadian Constitution Foundation argued the removal could unravel the very constitutional foundation of Canada's hate-speech framework: "By removing this safeguard from the Criminal Code... you may actually be upsetting the balance of the constitutionality of hate speech laws" established in the landmark R v. Keegstra decision [9].

A Coalition Unlike Any Other

What makes the opposition to Bill C-9 remarkable is its breadth. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association assembled a joint letter signed by 43 civil society organizations — ranging from the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association and Independent Jewish Voices to the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and Amnesty International's Canadian francophone chapter [4].

"Bill C-9 risks criminalizing peaceful protests near tens of thousands of locations in Canada," warned Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, CCLA Director [4]. The coalition urged the government to withdraw the bill entirely and pursue community-based approaches to combating hate.

The Canadian Labour Congress raised what it described as existential concerns for workers' rights. The CLC warned that the bill's broadly defined intimidation offence could make "certain legal job actions a criminal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison" — effectively criminalizing strike action and picketing near protected spaces [3]. The organization called this "a direct attack on collective bargaining, freedom of association, and the labour movement as a whole" [3].

The Canadian Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section flagged the bill's definition of hatred as "confusing," noting that the proposed clarification clause takes language from case law "out of context" rather than providing genuine clarity [13].

Source: GDELT Project

Data as of Mar 10, 2026CSV

Even communities the bill is ostensibly designed to protect have raised concerns. Craig Wellington, CEO of the Black Opportunity Fund, called on Ottawa to strengthen the bill by explicitly addressing anti-Black hate, arguing the legislation "fails to fully reflect the lived realities of Black Canadians" [15]. Muslim and Palestinian civil society organizations issued their own joint statement rejecting the bill, arguing it could be used to suppress pro-Palestinian advocacy [11].

The Filibuster and the Fast-Track Motion

After the bill was paused on January 26, 2026, the Justice Committee suspended its review amid overwhelming opposition [1][2]. But the Liberal government, facing pressure to act on rising hate crimes, moved to restart proceedings in late February.

When the bill returned to committee, Conservative MP Andrew Lawton launched a prolonged filibuster — one session featured extended remarks about dog breeds, in what critics called a deliberate delaying tactic. The Conservatives argued they had been "inundated with expressions of concern from religious leaders" and accused the government of ramming through flawed legislation [6].

Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon responded by tabling a motion that would force the Justice Committee to move directly to voting on amendments, end further debate, and fast-track the bill through its report stage [6]. Justice Critic Larry Brock shot back: "The Liberals have no one else to blame but themselves" for the political impasse, pointing to the party's alliance with the Bloc on the religious exemption [6].

The Commons vote on the motion, scheduled for a Monday sitting, would determine whether the bill advances despite the opposition of a cross-partisan, cross-faith, cross-sector coalition.

The Legal Fault Lines

Legal experts have identified several constitutional pressure points that could determine the bill's fate even if it passes the Commons [9][13].

Lowered threshold for "hatred." The Supreme Court's existing test, established in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (2013), requires hatred to be "intense and extreme." Bill C-9's proposed definition — "stronger than disdain or dislike" — appears to capture a considerably wider range of expression [9].

Removal of institutional safeguards. The Attorney General consent requirement has served as a gatekeeping mechanism against politicized or frivolous prosecutions since Canada first enacted hate propaganda laws in 1970. Its removal, critics argue, "invites arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement" and risks disproportionately targeting the very marginalized communities the bill aims to protect [4][9].

Stacking offences. By creating standalone hate-motivated offences rather than treating hate as a sentencing factor, the bill opens the door to what Van Geyn describes as penalty-stacking: "If they say you withheld wages and that was motivated by hatred, that's now a criminal penalty on top of the regulatory offense" [9].

The Charter test. The government's own Charter statement acknowledges that the bill engages sections 2(a) (freedom of religion), 2(b) (freedom of expression), 2(c) (freedom of assembly), and 2(d) (freedom of association) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — an unusually broad list of implicated rights for a single piece of legislation [7].

The Enforcement Paradox

Proponents of Bill C-9, including Justice Minister Sean Fraser, argue that the doubling of hate crimes since 2019 demands stronger legislative tools. But critics across the political spectrum point to what they call the enforcement paradox: Canada already has robust hate-crime laws on the books — the problem is that they are rarely enforced [9][13].

Existing Criminal Code provisions covering intimidation, mischief, uttering threats, and criminal harassment already address much of the conduct Bill C-9 targets. The real gap, critics argue, is in policing resources, investigative capacity, and prosecutorial willingness — none of which are addressed by adding new offences [9][3].

As the Canadian Constitution Foundation has noted, "the real challenge lies in enforcing them effectively" — a challenge that new legislation alone cannot solve [9].

What Happens Next

The Commons vote on the fast-track motion will set the bill's trajectory. If the motion passes, Bill C-9 could advance to report stage and third reading within weeks, potentially reaching the Senate before the summer recess. If it fails, the filibuster resumes — and the bill's fate becomes intertwined with broader parliamentary dynamics and the government's legislative calendar.

Regardless of the procedural outcome, legal challenges appear virtually certain. With four Charter rights implicated, a lowered threshold for criminal liability, and the removal of longstanding safeguards, Bill C-9 is likely headed for judicial review if it becomes law [7][9].

Canada finds itself at a critical juncture: grappling with a genuine surge in hate-motivated violence while confronting fundamental questions about how far the state can go in regulating speech without undermining the democratic freedoms that define the country. The answer may ultimately rest not with Parliament, but with the courts.