If you read the summary you will have enough knowledge to answer these simple Vote Questions Below.
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda, Hate Crime and Access to Religious or Cultural Places)
Short Title: Combatting Hate Act
Bill Type: House Government
Bill Sponsor: Minister of Justice
BILL C-9 — SUMMARY Combatting Hate Act
Bill C-9 amends the Criminal Code to expand hate propaganda and hate crime provisions, create new offences related to access to religious and cultural spaces, and increase penalties for crimes motivated by hatred. Key changes include removing the requirement for Attorney General consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid, introducing new offences for displaying symbols and obstructing access to religious or cultural buildings, and doubling or tripling maximum sentences for crimes deemed hate-motivated.
WHO GAINS POWER
Federal prosecutors gain authority to lay hate propaganda charges without prior Attorney General consent. Previously, that consent requirement acted as a filter on prosecutions — requiring sign-off from a senior government official before charges could proceed. Removing it gives individual prosecutors direct charging authority over hate propaganda offences.
Police gain authority to arrest individuals for displaying symbols or engaging in conduct near religious or cultural spaces deemed to constitute intimidation or obstruction — including conduct that does not involve physical violence.
Courts gain authority to impose enhanced sentences — doubled or tripled maximums — for any criminal offence found to be motivated by hatred, based on judicial assessment of the offender's intent. Life imprisonment becomes available for the most serious hate-motivated offences.
WHO LOSES POWER
Defendants lose the procedural protection that Attorney General consent previously provided. That requirement filtered charges before they reached court — its removal means individuals can face hate propaganda prosecution without that pre-charge review.
Citizens engaged in protest, satire, journalism, art or religious expression near religious or cultural spaces face potential liability under the new obstruction and intimidation offences. Defences for journalism, education, religion and art are available — but require the defendant to demonstrate "legitimate purpose," placing the burden on the accused rather than the Crown.
Religious communities, clergy and educators face potential exposure under expanded hate propaganda provisions if their teachings, sermons or materials are found to meet the bill's definition of promoting hatred — a standard defined as stronger than "dislike" but not requiring incitement to violence.
WHO GAINS MONEY
Law enforcement agencies and Crown prosecutors gain resources and caseload under the expanded provisions.
Legal professionals advising individuals, religious institutions, media organizations and advocacy groups on compliance with the new standards see increased demand — the vagueness of "legitimate purpose" defences creates ongoing legal uncertainty that requires professional navigation.
WHO LOSES MONEY
Taxpayers fund expanded enforcement, prosecution and incarceration under provisions whose scope will be defined through case law over time rather than clear statutory boundaries.
Religious institutions, media organizations, educators and artists face legal costs navigating the "legitimate purpose" defence — even where their conduct ultimately falls within protected expression, the cost of establishing that defence falls on them.
Individuals convicted under enhanced hate crime provisions face significantly longer sentences — and the associated economic consequences — for offences that would have carried lower maximums before this bill.
THE DEFINITION PROBLEM
The bill's key term — "hatred" — is defined as a standard stronger than dislike or ill will but not requiring incitement to violence. That middle ground is not precisely defined in the statute. Its boundaries will be established through prosecution and judicial interpretation over time.
This creates structural uncertainty for:
- ❌ Protesters near religious or cultural buildings — the line between lawful protest and criminal obstruction or intimidation is not clearly drawn
- ❌ Religious educators and clergy — whether specific teachings meet the hatred threshold depends on prosecutorial and judicial interpretation, not a clear statutory test
- ❌ Journalists and satirists — the "legitimate purpose" defence is available but must be proven by the defendant, not disproven by the Crown
- ❌ Artists — same burden applies; creative expression is not automatically exempt
WHO HOLDS THE SYSTEM ACCOUNTABLE?
- ❌ Pre-charge review — Attorney General consent is removed; no equivalent independent filter replaces it
- ❌ Definitional clarity — "hatred" and "legitimate purpose" are not precisely defined; scope is determined through prosecution and case law
- ❌ Consistent enforcement — prosecutorial discretion determines which conduct is charged; no independent body reviews charging decisions for consistency
- ❌ Parliamentary review — no statutory review date is built into the bill; the definition of hatred and its application are not subject to mandatory reassessment
[Source: Bill C-9 — Combatting Hate Act, House Government Bill, Minister of Justice]