Bill C-9 Referred Back to House of Commons with Amendments ALCCA Sought
- ALCCA Staff
- Mar 15
- 4 min read
As you know, Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act) was studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights after second reading in the House of Commons. The legislation was referred to the Committee on October 1, 2025. On March 11, 2026, the Committee issued its report to the House of Commons.
ALCCA’s Chair, Mark Sandler, had urged the Committee to adopt certain key amendments to the legislation. Thirty-five member organizations of ALCCA supported those suggested amendments. We are pleased to report that they were largely adopted by the Committee. Several organizations (ALCCA, CIJA, B’nai Brith, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Canadian Women Against Antisemitism) had also jointly urged the adoption of the legislation with the appropriate amendments.
Here is a summary of ALCCA’s submissions to the Committee (made both in writing and during Mr. Sandler’s testimony) and the Committee’s recommendations in its report to the House of Commons.
New Intimidation Offence
The legislation creates a new offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes.
We supported this provision without amendment. It has been adopted without amendment.
New Obstruction Offence
The legislation creates a new offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.
We supported this provision without amendment. It has been adopted without amendment.
New Hate Crime Offence
The legislation creates a new hate crime offence, with enhanced penalties when prosecuted by indictment, whenever a pre-existing offence is motivated by hatred based on certain factors.
We supported this provision without amendment. It has been adopted without amendment.
New Wilful Promotion of Hatred by Displaying Symbols
The legislation creates a new offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place.
We supported this provision, suggesting certain amendments to strengthen it, and an amendment to clearly distinguish between the swastika as a religious symbol appropriately used by several faith communities. and the Nazi Hakenkreuz. This was a critically important amendment to our Hindu members, who also advocated for it. The Committee adopted our proposed amendment to clarify that important distinction. It did not otherwise amend the provision.
The Requirement for the Attorney General’s Consent
The legislation originally contemplated removal of the requirement for the Attorney General’s personal consent to certain hate propaganda prosecutions. The removal was intended to streamline such prosecutions. However, the removal also would likely permit the misuse of the hate propaganda offences by private complainants. In particular, the removal could allow hate propaganda offences to be weaponized against the Jewish community.
Accordingly, we submitted that the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent should either not be removed or it should be retained only for privately laid charges. The Committee adopted our position by choosing not to remove this requirement. However, there is more work to be done. In our view, there should be enhanced transparency around the consent-related decisions of Attorneys General, and policy guidelines to enhance consistent and timely decision-making.
Statutory Definition of Hatred
The legislation creates a statutory definition of hatred. We supported this provision but only if the definition was amended to conform precisely to the definition already articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Keegstra case. This was an important change to preserve the constitutionality of hate speech legislation. The Committee adopted our position.
Repeal of Mischief Motivated by Bias, Prejudice or Hatred
Currently, s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code provides for a more serious form of mischief, when vandalism of certain types of property associated with religious worship and/or vulnerable groups is motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred. The legislation proposed to repeal this provision.
The government was mistakenly of the view that it was redundant in light of the new hate offence contemplated by the legislation. However, this offence does not require proof of hate motivation. An offence motivated by bias or prejudice, a lower standard, suffices. Accordingly, we urged the Committee not to repeal this offence. The Committee adopted this position.
Repeal of the Good Faith Religious Exemption Defence
In Committee, the Bloc Quebecois sought to amend the legislation to repeal the good faith religious exemption defence for several hate propaganda offences. This represented the most contentious amendment debated in Committee and divided the community. ALCCA’s Chair explained both to the Committee and to the public how the retention or removal of this defence would not have the effect some were attributing to these options. ALCCA and several legacy organizations urged compromise on this issue to enable the legislation to move forward. One way to address the issue, discussed in stakeholder meetings with government, was to repeal the defence but clarify that its removal should not be interpreted in a way that undermines fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion.
That is ultimately the position the Committee adopted. It recommended repeal of the defence, while adding provisions that state that, for greater certainty, nothing in the applicable hate propaganda offence sections (wilful promotion of hatred and wilful promotion of antisemitism) shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement or if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.
Unfinished Business
ALCCA’s Chair has advocated for the creation of a new offence of wilful promotion of designated terrorist groups or terrorist activities that would address a significant deficiency in the law. MP Roman Baber introduced a private member’s bill, not yet considered in Committee, that proposes creation of such an offence. It is also supported by ALCCA members and legacy organizations earlier referred to, as well as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It did not form part of Bill C-9 and has not yet been considered.
ALCCA urges the government to address this deficiency in the law as soon as possible. In the meantime, it urges the speedy passage of Bill C-9. Finally, we note that all organizations that supported the legislation, including ALCCA, made it clear that, although additional criminal law tools for police and prosecutors to combat hatred are welcome, they must be accompanied by robust and consistent enforcement of both pre-existing and new legal measures.
--
For more resources on Bill C-9, click here.