What is the legal and practical impact of the final enacted version of Bill C-9?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The legislation known as Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, would—according to the parliamentary text and government materials—amend the Criminal Code to create new offences for willfully promoting hatred, establish a standalone hate-motivated “hate crime” enhancement, and criminalize obstructing or intimidating persons attempting to access religious or cultural places, while removing the Attorney General’s prior consent requirement for hate-propaganda prosecutions [1] [2] [3] [4]. Debate over a high-profile amendment to remove the existing “good faith” religious exemption has focused public attention on how the final enacted version would balance protecting vulnerable communities against risks to freedom of expression and religious practice [5] [6].
1. Legal architecture: what the law adds and removes
Bill C-9 formally codifies a definition of “hatred” grounded in Supreme Court jurisprudence and creates three principal criminal measures: a new hate crime offence that enhances penalties where an underlying offence is motivated by hatred; an offence for willfully promoting hatred in public by displaying certain symbols; and offences criminalizing intimidation or interference with lawful access to places used for worship or by identifiable groups [3] [2]. The bill also repeals the statutory requirement that the Attorney General consent before hate-propaganda proceedings can be instituted, thereby shifting procedural gatekeeping from the Attorney General to regular prosecutorial channels [2] [7].
2. Prosecutorial practice and policing: lowering or just redirecting thresholds?
Removing Attorney General consent is a practical change likely to increase prosecutorial discretion and the number of hate-related charges brought by police and Crown prosecutors, according to stakeholder analysis and advocacy groups who note it “may make it easier” to prosecute hate-motivated conduct [2] [7]. The federal Charter Statement argues the hate-crime enhancement is tailored to its objective and maintains sentencing discretion for judges, but stakeholders warn the institutional change could produce uneven enforcement depending on local prosecutorial priorities and police practices [3] [2].
3. Speech and religion: contested boundaries and the religious exemption
A contentious amendment supported by the Liberals and Bloc Québécois would remove the Criminal Code’s current “good faith” religious exemption that shields expression framed as religious argument or textual exposition, a change that faith groups and legal advocates say could chill preaching and religious discourse even as proponents argue it narrows a loophole used to justify hateful incitement [5] [6]. Legal organizations and religious coalitions warn the bill’s drafting and the single explicitly listed “hate symbol” raise freedom-of-expression and conscience concerns, while government materials stress the bill expressly excludes mere offence or humiliation from constituting “hatred,” reflecting a deliberate attempt to align with Supreme Court thresholds [8] [3] [9].
4. Practical effects on communities, worship spaces and protest
By criminalizing intentional intimidation or obstruction of access to places of worship or culturally significant sites, the bill aims to protect physical safety and free movement for targeted groups; advocates for 2SLGBTQI and other communities explicitly support measures that make it easier to prosecute harassment around events such as drag performances or pride events [7] [2]. Conversely, labour and civil-rights groups caution the expanded definitions and enforcement powers could be used against peaceful protest and collective action, with disproportionate impacts on Indigenous, Black and racialized communities if not carefully constrained [10].
5. Political dynamics, public debate and institutional responses
The bill’s trajectory has been shaped by inter-party negotiation—most notably the Bloc-Liberal deal to press the religious-exemption amendment—which has amplified partisan framing that this law is either a necessary shield for targeted groups or a potential sword against free expression and faith-based activity [5] [11]. Legal associations, victims’ advocates and faith bodies have submitted conflicting assessments: the federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime and groups like Egale see concrete enforcement and victim-access advantages, while bar associations, religious conferences and labour groups flag Charter and policing risks [12] [7] [8] [10].
6. Limits of the public record and remaining uncertainties
Available reporting and official summaries describe the bill’s proposed text and stakeholder submissions but do not yet reflect a single, post-enactment “final” version or systematic empirical evidence about how prosecutions would change in practice; therefore any projection about enforcement patterns, chilling effects, or disparate impacts rests on interpretation of legislative language and stakeholder predictions rather than post-enactment data [4] [2]. The most reliable immediate legal impacts are the statutory changes set out in the bill text and Charter Statement; the longer-term practical impacts on policing, courts and communities will only be provable once the law is operational and case law begins to interpret key terms [1] [3].