Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why was Bill C-9 proposed in the Canadian parliament?
Executive Summary
Bill C-9 was proposed in Parliament with two distinct legislative aims that led to different bills and public debates: one version sought to amend the Criminal Code as the “Combatting Hate Act” to strengthen offences related to hate propaganda, hate-motivated crimes, and access to religious or cultural places, while another reform package titled Bill C‑9 targeted comprehensive changes to the Judges Act to modernize judicial conduct and discipline processes. Both rationales framed the legislation as responses to perceived gaps—either in protecting vulnerable groups and places from intimidation and hateful expression, or in restoring public confidence and procedural fairness in the judiciary—yet each has attracted criticism about collateral impacts on Charter rights and institutional independence [1] [2] [3].
1. Why lawmakers said hate and access laws were needed — tightening gaps and modernizing definitions
Proponents of the Criminal Code amendments presented Bill C‑9 as a targeted effort to fill legal gaps exposed by rising hate incidents, especially against 2SLGBTQI communities, and to better protect access to places of worship and cultural institutions. The bill creates new offences for intimidation and obstruction at entry points, adds a hate-motivation element to existing crimes, and criminalizes public display of designated hate or terrorist symbols while redefining “hatred” to align with Supreme Court jurisprudence. Supporters argued these changes would deter fear-based obstruction and explicitly safeguard Charter freedoms of religion, expression and assembly by addressing conduct that chills access to protected spaces; government materials framed the measures as calibrated to address contemporary forms of hostility and online dissemination [1] [4] [2].
2. Why judicial reformers argued the Judges Act needed overhaul — restoring trust and expanding sanction options
A separate legislative strand described as Bill C‑9 in other sources targeted the Judges Act, driven by concerns that the judicial conduct system—largely unchanged since 1971—had become opaque, slow, costly, and unable to adequately sanction a spectrum of misconduct. Reformers advocated for procedural reforms that introduce lay participation on review and hearing panels, broaden available sanctions short of removal, impose clearer timelines and funding mechanisms, and improve transparency and fairness for both judges and complainants. The stated objective was to restore public confidence in the judiciary by creating a more effective, proportionate, and accountable disciplinary framework while preserving judicial independence [3] [5].
3. Where advocates and critics clash — free expression, protest, and judicial independence at stake
Civil society organizations and rights advocates flagged trade-offs in both packages, arguing the hate-focused Criminal Code amendments risk criminalizing legitimate protest, dissent, and expressive conduct, potentially infringing on Charter protections despite aims to curb violence and intimidation. Similarly, judicial‑reform critics warned that introducing lay members and broader sanctioning could threaten judicial independence or chill adjudicative impartiality, even as supporters insist checks are necessary to maintain accountability. These tensions highlight that the bills were presented as problem-solving measures yet generated substantive debate about whether the proposed tools would remedy harms without creating new constitutional or institutional risks [6] [4] [7].
4. Data and context lawmakers relied on — spikes in hate incidents and perceived legitimacy gaps
Legislative proponents referenced empirical trends and institutional reviews to justify action: documented rises in anti-2SLGBTQI hate crimes—cited as a dramatic percentage increase since 2016—served as evidence for enhancing hate-related offences and symbol prohibitions, while internal reviews and public confidence surveys informed the push to modernize judicial discipline. Framing the two bills as responses to measurable problems enabled proponents to argue urgency, but critics point out that evidence-based design and safeguards are essential to ensure the measures do not overreach or misapply to peaceful assembly and legitimate speech [4] [3] [1].
5. Political and legal outlook — competing agendas and the path forward
Parliamentary records and policy analyses show Bill C‑9’s dual identities generated overlapping but distinct legislative paths: one aimed squarely at criminal law responses to hate and access issues, while the other sought structural reform of judicial oversight. Both attracted party-line and civil-society scrutiny, and both require careful parliamentary scrutiny to reconcile competing priorities—protecting vulnerable communities and places on one hand, and preserving core constitutional principles and institutional independence on the other. The bills’ ultimate form and legal durability will depend on amendments, judicial review, and how Parliament balances targeted protections against the potential chilling effects critics emphasize [2] [3] [6].