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
Status: Consideration of Senate Amendments — June 11, 2026 (House of Commons). This Bill has not passed yet.
How would YOU vote? Scroll down to vote and comment below.
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:
- removing the requirement for Attorney General consent before hate propaganda charges can be laid
- introducing new offenses for displaying symbols and obstructing access to religious or cultural buildings
- 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 offenses.
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
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 offenses. Defenses 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" 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
⚠️ "Hatred" Is Not Precisely Defined — The Bill defines hatred as 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 — not through clear statutory language.
⚠️ No Pre-Charge Filter Replaces Attorney General Consent — Removing the Attorney General consent requirement eliminates the only pre-charge review mechanism for hate propaganda prosecutions. No independent equivalent replaces it. Individual prosecutors now have direct charging authority with no senior sign-off required.
⚠️ "Legitimate Purpose" Burden Falls on the Accused — Defenses for journalism, education, religion and art are available — but the defendant must demonstrate legitimate purpose, not the Crown. The cost of establishing that defense falls on the accused even where their conduct ultimately falls within protected expression.
⚠️ 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.
Source: Bill C-9 — Combatting Hate Act, House Government Bill, Minister of Justice