What Bill C-9 – the Combatting Hate Act – Means for You
- Mark Sandler
- Oct 16
- 5 min read
Why this matters
On September 19, 2025, the federal government tabled Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act. It is currently being reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. While introducing anti-hate legislation early in the government’s legislative agenda is commendable, Canada continues to experience spiralling and unprecedented levels of antisemitism and other forms of hatred.
The prime impediment to prosecuting hate-motivated criminals has not been a lack of laws, but an under-utilization of existing criminal law tools. Strengthening enforcement of current laws is as important as any new measures.
1. New intimidation and obstruction offences
The Bill would create Criminal Code offences for wilfully intimidating or obstructing people accessing facilities such as places of worship, schools, community centres, and other locations primarily used by identifiable groups.
These provisions send a clear message and expose perpetrators to more significant penalties. However, this is not “bubble legislation.” It does not create protest-free zones; provinces and municipalities would need to enact those protections. Existing Criminal Code offences – such as mischief, disturbing religious worship, and intimidation (in its current form) – already address much of this conduct, and the new intimidation offence may be difficult to prove because of the specific intent that must be proven to obtain a conviction.
What this means for you:
If protesters block access to a synagogue, school, or community centre in a way that makes people afraid to enter, police would have clearer grounds to act. But because this is not bubble legislation, protests near those locations would still be allowed unless they cross the line into intimidation, obstruction or hate speech. Local governments should go further by passing “bubble-zone” legislation that prevents harassment before it occurs.
2. A new hate-motivated offence
The Bill would create a separate, stand-alone offence, when an existing offence is motivated by hatred against an identifiable group. It introduces enhanced penalties and defines “hatred” as an emotion that involves detestation or vilification that is stronger than disdain or dislike.
Introduction of this new offence would be more likely to result in sentences focused on deterrence and denunciation and would ensure that criminal records reflect the hate-motivated nature of the offence. To avoid confusion or litigation, Bill C-9 should define hatred using precisely the same wording already provided by the Supreme Court.
The Bill also repeals s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code – mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate targeting places of worship and similar institutions. Retaining this offence is important because bias or prejudice is often easier to prove than hate, and the offence frequently applies to vandalism affecting Jewish and other vulnerable institutions.
What this means for you:
If someone threatens to kill a member of our community because they are Jewish or a member of another vulnerable group, this could be charged as a hate-motivated threatening death as opposed to merely as a threatening death charge. Stronger penalties and a more transparent criminal record ensure that hate-motivated offences are appropriately denounced and deterred.
Keeping the existing offence of mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred would ensure that crimes such as vandalizing synagogues and other vulnerable community spaces are appropriately labelled as more serious offences, even when “hatred” is difficult to prove.
3. Hate propaganda (symbols of hatred)
The Bill treats public display of certain symbols – such as the Nazi Hakenkreuz or SS bolts, and items principally used by or associated with listed terrorist entities – as one way of committing wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups.
This is not a new, stand-alone “display” offence; prosecutors would still need to prove wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. This legal analysis recommends a separate offence that prohibits displaying items that identify or are directly associated with listed terrorist groups, using language already found in Criminal Code s. 83.18(4). The analysis also emphasizes the need to better distinguish the Nazi Hakenkreuz from the swastika, a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
What this means for you:
If someone waves a Hezbollah flag or displays a Nazi symbol, police could charge the perpetrator(s) with this offence if the display is intended to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. The proposed law still requires proof of wilful promotion of hatred against a specific group.
Refining the language would help ensure that legitimate cultural or religious symbols are not mistaken for hate symbols, while enabling the prosecution of those who malevolently display symbols unequivocally associated with terror.
4. Removing the Attorney General’s consent
Bill C-9 would remove the requirement for Attorney General consent before laying most hate propaganda charges.
While this could speed up prosecutions, the consent requirement currently serves as a safeguard against misuse or politicization – for example, attempts to criminalize legitimate expression. A better approach would be to retain the consent requirement but make the process faster and more transparent, or to remove it only in cases where police recommend prosecution, not for private prosecutions.
What this means for you:
If someone publicly communicates hate propaganda, removing the Attorney General’s consent could allow charges to proceed more quickly. However, without that safeguard, the law could be used to target lawful advocacy – such as support for Israel or opposition to antisemitism. Keeping the consent process, or limiting it to private prosecutions, and making it more efficient and transparent would help prevent misuse while allowing meritorious hate propaganda cases to move forward promptly.
5. What’s missing from Bill C-9
Wilful promotion of terrorism: A new offence is needed to address those who, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote terrorist activities or the activities of listed terrorist groups.
Key recommendations
Support creation of the new hate offence.
Support creation of a display-of-terror-symbols offence, with amendments to make it free-standing, use “identifies/associated with” language, and clearly distinguish between the Nazi Hakenkreuz and the swastika.
Oppose repeal of s. 430(4.1) (bias/prejudice/hate-motivated mischief).
Oppose removing the Attorney General’s consent requirement, or retain the consent requirement only for private prosecutions.
Support a new offence for the wilful promotion of terrorist groups or activities.
Encourage provinces and municipalities to enact bubble-zone legislation.
Emphasize consistent enforcement of existing Criminal Code provisions.
What you can do
Stay informed – subscribe to our newsletter for updates and advocacy opportunities.
Share this explainer with your community or organization.
Contact your MP with informed feedback on Bill C-9 and the recommendations above.
Report incidents and follow up on case outcomes to encourage consistent enforcement.
Learn more
For more details on Bill C-9, read ALCCA Chair Mark Sandler’s written submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
About The Author
Mark Sandler, LL.B., LL.D. (honoris causa), ALCCA’s Chair, is widely recognized as one of Canada’s leading criminal lawyers and pro bono advocates. He has been involved in combatting antisemitism for over 40 years. He has lectured extensively on legal remedies to combat hate and has promoted respectful Muslim-Jewish, Sikh-Jewish and Black-Jewish dialogues. He has appeared before Parliamentary committees and in the Supreme Court of Canada on multiple occasions on issues relating to antisemitism and hate activities. He is a former member of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, a three-time elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, and recipient of the criminal profession’s highest honour, the G. Arthur Martin Medal, for his contributions to the administration of criminal justice.