Reflections on Bill C-9 in Canada

Canada’s proposed Bill C-9, often referred to as the Combatting Hate Act, represents a serious attempt to respond to a troubling and well-documented rise in hate-motivated incidents across the country. The bill seeks to strengthen Criminal Code provisions related to hate, including intimidation, obstruction, and certain public displays of hate-associated symbols, particularly in or around places of worship and cultural significance. Its stated goal is to better protect individuals and communities who have increasingly found themselves targeted because of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or ethnicity.

It is important to note from the outset that Bill C-9 does not emerge from a legal vacuum. Canada already has hate-related provisions in the Criminal Code, including offences related to hate propaganda, mischief against religious property, and sentencing enhancements when crimes are proven to be motivated by hate. The government’s argument is not that protections do not exist, but that the current framework is increasingly seen as insufficient to address how hate now manifests in public life.

A Rising and Documented Concern

The urgency behind this legislation is supported by data. Statistics Canada reports that police-reported hate crimes have more than doubled since 2019. In 2023 alone, over 4,700 incidents were recorded nationwide, an increase of more than 30 per cent from the year before, with preliminary 2024 figures suggesting the trend has not meaningfully reversed. Nearly half of these crimes were motivated by race or ethnicity, while a significant portion targeted religious identity, particularly Jewish and Muslim communities. These figures likely underestimate the problem, as many hate-motivated incidents are never reported, but they nonetheless point to a reality that cannot be dismissed.

Canadians are also painfully aware that hate does not always remain symbolic or verbal. The Quebec City mosque shooting and the fatal truck attack on a Muslim family in London, Ontario remain seared into the national consciousness. These acts remind us that hate can escalate quickly into devastating violence, leaving entire communities shaken. Against this backdrop, it is understandable that governments feel compelled to act decisively and visibly.

Why Existing Laws Are Seen as Insufficient

Supporters of Bill C-9 argue that while Canada has hate-crime laws on the books, many are difficult to apply in practice. Hate-propaganda provisions, for example, were deliberately written with high thresholds to protect freedom of expression. As a result, prosecutions are rare and convictions rarer still. Prosecutors often rely instead on general criminal offences, leaving many hate-motivated actions unaddressed unless they escalate into violence or property damage.

At the same time, much contemporary hate no longer fits neatly into older legal categories. Increasingly, it appears as organized intimidation outside places of worship, obstruction of community gatherings, or the strategic use of symbols associated with violence or extremist movements. Bill C-9 seeks to address these gaps by creating more specific offences related to intimidation and obstruction, and by making certain forms of hate-motivated conduct easier to prosecute.

The rising number of reported incidents has also created political and moral pressure. Communities experiencing repeated targeting understandably want stronger assurances that the law recognizes and responds to what they are facing. In this sense, Bill C-9 is not only a legal proposal, but also a symbolic one, intended to signal that hate is a priority issue for the state.

The Limits of Urgency and the Role of Law

Yet responsible public policy requires more than urgency and symbolism. It requires careful consideration of how laws function in practice and what values they may unintentionally compromise. Hate is real and harmful, but it is rarely caused by legal gaps alone. It often grows in conditions shaped by fear, isolation, economic anxiety, misinformation, and social fragmentation. Criminal law can respond to the most severe expressions of hate, but it cannot by itself address the deeper conditions that allow such attitudes to take root.

This raises an important question: are we relying on new criminal offences to compensate for shortcomings elsewhere—such as inadequate prevention, weak community support, or uneven enforcement of existing laws? If so, legislation alone risks becoming reactive rather than transformative.

A Historical Caution About Moral Certainty

History also urges caution. Across different societies and eras, moral certainty has frequently been used to justify repression. Political, religious, and ideological authorities have claimed access to higher truths in order to silence dissent or exclude entire groups. Within Christian history, appeals to divine authority were once used to defend crusades, inquisitions, colonial domination, and racial hierarchies.

Acknowledging this history is not an attack on faith or moral conviction; it is a reminder of how easily the language of righteousness can become entangled with power when it is shielded from critique. Public policy shaped by moral urgency must therefore be accompanied by humility and restraint.

Freedom of Expression and Religion at the Core

This awareness matters in contemporary debates about hate legislation because such laws inevitably intersect with freedom of expression and freedom of religion, both protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a liberal democracy, a foundational principle is that law regulates conduct, not belief. These freedoms do not depend on whether a viewpoint is popular or comfortable, but on whether individuals can hold and express convictions without resorting to violence, intimidation, or coercion.

The legitimacy of hate-crime legislation therefore rests on its precision. Laws should focus on clearly defined, demonstrable actions such as threats, obstruction, vandalism, or incitement to violence, rather than on ideas, doctrines, or moral perspectives that may be controversial or widely disliked.

Why Precision and Due Process Matter

When the line between offensive speech and actual harm becomes blurred, enforcement risks becoming inconsistent and overly dependent on political or cultural pressure. This not only undermines trust in institutions but can also make minority communities—including religious minorities—feel newly vulnerable.

Legal precision is not a technical detail; it is a safeguard. Narrow definitions, high thresholds for criminal liability, and clear evidentiary standards protect both those who are targeted by hate and those who rely on civil liberties to participate fully in public life. Vague or expansive language may feel responsive in moments of social tension, but it often grants excessive discretion to authorities and leaves outcomes vulnerable to shifting political winds.

Equally important is procedural justice. Independent courts, transparent prosecutorial standards, and meaningful avenues for appeal ensure that laws are applied fairly rather than expediently. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion have never meant freedom from criticism or disagreement. They mean the right to be treated justly when views are contested.

Beyond Criminal Law: A Broader Public Responsibility

If the goal is a Canada with less hatred and greater social cohesion, public policy must also look beyond criminal law. Investment in education, community engagement, mental-health support, and opportunities for genuine cross-cultural interaction are essential. Experience in many Canadian cities suggests that when people feel seen, respected, and included, the appeal of hate diminishes. These outcomes rarely come from legislation alone, but from sustained, relational work that is slower and less visible, yet ultimately more transformative.

Conclusion: A Necessary and Ongoing Conversation

Bill C-9 responds to a real and urgent challenge, and it deserves serious debate rather than reflexive endorsement or dismissal. The question Canadians face is not whether we oppose hate—most do—but how we do so without weakening the freedoms that allow a diverse society to coexist. Laws can draw boundaries, but it is civic culture, restraint in the use of power, and commitment to dialogue that determine whether those boundaries serve justice. If this debate encourages Canadians to reflect more deeply on how safety, dignity, freedom, and pluralism belong together, then the discussion itself will have served an important public purpose.