Which MPs and senators opposed Bill C-9 and what were their main criticisms?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Conservative MPs and multiple civil-society groups have been the most visible opponents of Bill C‑9, arguing it lowers the legal threshold for “hatred,” threatens religious expression, and risks criminalizing peaceful protest and labour activity [1] [2] [3]. Major civil liberties, labour and faith organizations — including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Labour Congress and a cross‑faith coalition — warned the bill would chill speech, expand police discretion and could make certain strike or picketing activities criminal offences punishable by up to 10 years [3] [4] [5].
1. Who in Parliament has publicly opposed C‑9 — and why they say so
Conservative MPs have mounted the clearest parliamentary opposition, framing C‑9 as an assault on free expression: they argue the bill “lowers the legal standard for ‘hatred’,” removes key safeguards such as Attorney General consent and was rushed into process without sufficient study [1] [2] [6]. The Conservative criticism also emphasizes that the government and its Bloc Québécois partners altered the bill in ways Conservatives say are “toxic and divisive,” notably the removal of a religious‑text defence, which they say endangers religious freedom [6] [7].
The Bloc Québécois occupies a complicated place: while the Bloc pressed to remove the religious‑exemption from the Criminal Code and negotiated that amendment with the Liberals, other opposition voices (notably Conservatives) denounced that very change as an additional reason to oppose the bill [8] [9].
Available sources do not list a roll‑call of every MP or senator who formally voted against the bill because LEGISinfo reports there are “no recorded votes” yet for C‑9 [10].
2. Civil society’s parliamentary allies and the grounds of their objections
A broad coalition of civil liberties, labour and faith groups publicly urged Parliament to withdraw or amend C‑9. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and a group of 37–43 organizations argued the bill “risks criminalizing peaceful protests” near thousands of locations and would disproportionately harm the communities it claims to protect [3] [11]. The Canadian Labour Congress warned the bill could “erode” freedoms of expression and association and may criminalize some lawful labour actions, citing potential penalties up to 10 years [4]. Multi‑faith groups and faith organizations — including Catholic and other religious civil‑rights bodies — warned stripping the “good faith” religious defence would chill sermons and religious teaching [5] [12].
3. Core legal criticisms raised at committee
Opponents took aim at three structural features. First, critics say C‑9 broadens definitions of hate by removing or altering wording that previously limited prosecutions to more extreme forms of hatred, thereby lowering the legal threshold for criminal liability [1] [11]. Second, the bill repeals the requirement that an Attorney General consent to prosecutions for hate propaganda, a safeguard critics claim prevents politicized or vexatious charges [1] [13]. Third, the justice committee added an amendment that removes the religious exemption in section 319(b) — a change faith groups contend would criminalize good‑faith religious expression [9] [14].
4. The counterargument: government intent and supporters’ position
The government frames C‑9 as a response to rising antisemitic and other hate violence, creating new offences to protect access to worship, schools and community spaces and to ban public display of terrorist or hate symbols [15] [11]. Supporters argue existing Criminal Code provisions already target violent acts but say C‑9 fills gaps around obstruction and intimidation at places where vulnerable groups gather [11] [16]. Available sources show the government and Bloc negotiated amendments to secure sufficient support in a minority Parliament [15] [9].
5. Political dynamics and why opposition matters in a minority Parliament
Because Liberals sit in a minority, loss of Bloc support or unified opposition from Conservatives would imperil C‑9’s passage: the Bloc’s conditional deal to remove a religious exemption was politically decisive but also provoked backlash from Conservatives and many civil society groups, intensifying public resistance and committee controversy [8] [9] [17]. Committee scheduling fights and cancelled meetings underscore how parliamentary manoeuvring matters as the bill goes clause‑by‑clause [15] [18].
6. What reporters and experts say is missing from current coverage
Multiple commentators say Bill C‑9 duplicates existing offences and that enforcement of current laws might address many harms without new criminal provisions; others worry the bill was drafted and amended too quickly without sufficient study [19] [6]. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of every MP or senator who has opposed the bill on record votes, nor do they include completed Senate votes because LEGISinfo records “no recorded votes” at this stage [10].
Limitations: this account relies solely on the supplied reporting and organizational statements; precise vote lists and later committee outcomes are not present in those sources and therefore are not asserted here [10].