Bill C-9 Combatting Hate Act

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 Sean Fraser

Status: Royal Assent — June 18, 2026. This Bill is now Law. The changes came into force on July 18, 2026.

Estimated Read Time: 5 minutes

What is this Bill For?

Bill C-9 amends the Criminal Code to expand hate propaganda and hate crime provisions, create new offenses related to access to religious and cultural spaces and increase penalties for crimes motivated by hatred. 

Key changes include: 

• creating a new offense for using certain terrorism or hate symbols to wilfully promote hatred
• creating new offenses for intimidating people or blocking lawful access to protected religious, cultural and community places
• creating a separate hate crime offense with higher maximum sentences when another Federal offense is motivated by hatred
• removing the existing defense for good-faith opinions based on religious subjects or religious texts.

WHO GAINS POWER

Prosecutors gain new hate crime, hate symbol, intimidation and obstruction offenses to use when the legal requirements are met. Attorney General consent remains required for the existing hate propaganda proceedings covered by that safeguard, including the new hate-symbol offense.

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 offense 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 offenses.

WHO LOSES POWER

People charged under the new hate crime, intimidation and obstruction offenses face new Criminal Code penalties. Attorney General consent remains required for the existing hate propaganda proceedings covered by that safeguard.

People engaged in protest near protected religious, cultural or community places may face liability if they intentionally block lawful access or use intimidation to prevent access. The legitimate-purpose defence for journalism, education, religion and art applies to the new hate-symbol offense, not generally to the intimidation and obstruction offenses.

Religious communities, clergy and educators may face greater legal exposure because Bill C‑9 removes the defense for good-faith opinions based on religious subjects or religious texts in cases involving willful promotion of hatred or antisemitism. The Crown must still prove the elements of the offense.

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" defenses 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" defense — even where their conduct ultimately falls within protected expression, the cost of establishing that defense falls on them.

Individuals convicted under enhanced hate crime provisions face significantly longer sentences — and the associated economic consequences — for offenses that would have carried lower maximums before this Bill.

THE CATCH

⚠️ Meaning of "Hatred" — The Law defines hatred as the emotion involving detestation or vilification that is stronger than disdain or dislike. Conduct does not become hate-motivated only because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. Courts will continue applying that definition to individual cases.

⚠️ "Legitimate Purpose" Defense — A person charged with the new hate-symbol offense can rely on legitimate purposes such as journalism, education, religion or art. The accused must establish that defense after the Crown proves the offense.

⚠️ Protest Near Religious or Cultural Spaces — The line between lawful protest and criminal obstruction or intimidation near religious or cultural buildings is not clearly drawn in the statute. That boundary will be defined through prosecution and Case Law.

⚠️ No Statutory Review Date — No mandatory reassessment of the hatred definition or its application is built into the Bill. Parliament is not required to revisit how the provisions are working in practice.

⚠️ Financial Restrictions Under Other Government Powers — Bill C‑9 does not create a new power to freeze bank accounts or fundraising money. However, Government used Emergency powers during the Freedom Convoy to freeze accounts and restrict access to donated funds before the affected people were convicted of a crime. The new speech-related offenses in Bill C‑9 raise a broader accountability question about whether similar financial restrictions should ever be used before conviction.