What are the main provisions of Bill C-9 in Canada?
Executive summary
Bill C-9 in parliamentary materials refers primarily to the Combatting Hate Act — a package of Criminal Code amendments that aims to expand and clarify offences related to hate propaganda, hate-motivated crimes, and protections for places of worship and cultural sites — and a separate Bill C‑9 in past Parliaments amended the Judges Act to reform judicial conduct review; both uses of “C‑9” are distinct and important to keep separate in debate [1] [2]. The Criminal Code version proposes new hate-motivated offence categories, narrows certain defences and exemptions, and broadens protections against intimidation and obstruction related to access to religious and cultural places, while critics warn it may lower legal thresholds for “hatred” and constrain freedom of expression [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Combatting Hate Act (Criminal Code amendments) proposes
The Combatting Hate Act — tabled as Bill C‑9 — seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create new offences and enhance existing offences tied to hate propaganda and hate-motivated crimes, including a stand‑alone hate‑motivated offence applicable when any offence is driven by hatred toward specified protected grounds such as race, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity [3] [6]. The bill also targets intimidation and obstruction around places of worship and cultural sites by criminalizing harassment or blocking of people attempting to enter such places and by making it an offence to display symbols in ways that incite hatred, subject to some exceptions [1] [7].
2. How “hatred” and protected expression are redefined in the bill
Bill C‑9 would codify a definition of “hatred” as an emotion involving detestation or vilification, and explicitly state that statements are not incitement solely because they discredit, humiliate, hurt or offend — language the Department of Justice says is intended to reflect Supreme Court jurisprudence, though critics argue the bill’s phrasing may lower the threshold from earlier case law [3] [8]. The government’s Charter Statement frames these definitional changes as an effort to codify settled principles while safeguarding legitimate journalism, religion, education or art, but opponents including religious organizations and civil‑liberties groups warn removal of certain exemptions could chill legitimate religious or academic debate [7] [4].
3. Procedural and enforcement changes: who can bring charges
One notable procedural change flagged in parliamentary summaries and commentary would remove or alter requirements that previously limited prosecutions — for example, some statements note elimination of the Attorney General’s required consent for instituting certain hate propaganda proceedings, a change that supporters say speeds accountability and critics say risks politicizing prosecutions [7] [5]. Proponents including victims’ advocates frame the bill as addressing gaps in enforcement and protecting communities harmed by online and offline hate, while urging further measures for digital contexts; federal submissions from victim‑oriented offices commend the bill’s aims but call for continued attention to online harms [9].
4. Support, criticism and political context
Legal and community organisations such as the Canadian Bar Association and Jewish community groups have publicly explained and generally supported elements of Bill C‑9 as strengthening responses to rising hate crimes, urging precise drafting and clarity on scope and enforcement [6] [10]. Conversely, political opponents and advocacy groups — from conservative parties to faith bodies and civil liberties advocates — warn that the bill lowers the legal standard for “hatred,” risks curtailing free expression and could be used to criminalize protest or dissent; some observers link recent government negotiations with the Bloc Québécois to the specific removal of a religious‑expression exemption, highlighting political tradeoffs shaping the bill [5] [11] [4].
5. Where the record is limited and what to watch next
Existing government documents and stakeholder briefs outline the text and aims of the Criminal Code amendments and separately describe an earlier Judges Act reform also called Bill C‑9 in a prior Parliament, but public reporting does not settle all practical questions — such as how police and prosecutors will apply the new standards in online contexts, or how courts will interpret the revised definition of “hatred” in future cases — making judicial interpretation and parliamentary committee amendments critical next steps to watch [9] [2].