Combatting Hate Act Heads to Senate After Divisive House Debate

One of the most contentious social policy bills of the spring sitting is now before the Senate after clearing the House of Commons earlier this year.

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, passed the House in March following months of debate over the balance between combating hate and protecting freedom of expression. The legislation introduces new Criminal Code offences related to the public display of certain hate and terrorism symbols, strengthens protections for access to religious and cultural institutions, and makes the most significant change to Canada’s hate speech framework in decades by removing the existing good-faith religious exemption from federal law.

The bill was championed by the Liberal government as part of a broader response to rising hate crimes across Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney pointed to data showing hate crimes more than doubled between 2018 and 2024, alongside significant increases in antisemitic incidents and other targeted acts of intimidation.

While much of the public discussion focused on hate symbols and protections for vulnerable communities, the debate inside Parliament quickly centred on the religious exemption.

The exemption had long provided protection for individuals expressing religious beliefs in good faith, even when those views touched on subjects that could otherwise intersect with hate speech provisions. Supporters of its removal argued that the exemption had become outdated and could be used to shield genuinely hateful conduct from scrutiny simply because it was presented through a religious lens.

The Bloc Québécois made removal of the exemption a condition of its support for the legislation, arguing that religious belief should not provide special treatment under hate speech law. The Liberal government ultimately accepted the amendment, securing enough support to move the bill through the House.

The resulting political alignment was unusual.

The Conservatives opposed the legislation, arguing the changes create uncertainty around religious expression and could chill lawful speech. Several Conservative MPs brought Bibles to committee hearings as a symbolic demonstration of what they viewed as the stakes involved.

The New Democratic Party and Green Party also opposed the bill, though largely on broader civil-liberties and free-expression grounds rather than religious ones.

Outside Parliament, criticism emerged from multiple directions. Civil liberties advocates warned that expanding hate speech provisions while removing a longstanding exemption could increase uncertainty around where protected expression ends and criminal liability begins. Several faith communities expressed concern that religious leaders, educators, and institutions may face greater legal ambiguity when discussing contentious social or theological issues.

Supporters of the bill reject those concerns. They argue that Canadian courts already apply a high threshold to hate speech prosecutions and that genuinely good-faith religious teaching remains protected by the Charter. In their view, the change simply removes a blanket statutory protection that is no longer necessary.

The debate is now shifting to the Senate, where the bill is expected to receive close examination when Parliament returns in the fall.

The upper chamber will face a difficult question. Parliament has a legitimate interest in combating hatred and protecting vulnerable communities from intimidation and incitement. At the same time, changes affecting religious expression and speech protections inevitably raise constitutional questions that demand careful scrutiny.

The answer may ultimately come from the courts. Legal observers widely expect Charter challenges should the legislation become law, particularly regarding freedom of religion and freedom of expression protections.

For now, Bill C-9 remains one of the most politically unusual bills of the current Parliament. It united Liberals and the Bloc in support while drawing opposition from Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, civil-liberties advocates, and some faith organizations. Whether that coalition proves durable may depend on how the Senate handles the legislation and how Canadians respond to the debate it has already begun.