Canada’s Bill C-9, Orwellian Thought Police?

Or Much Ado About Nothing?

Photo by Walter Olivares on Unsplash

On March 26, 2026, Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, passed third reading in Canada’s House of Commons. It has now been introduced into the Senate, where it will undergo study and its own series of readings and voting.

This controversial legislation has been widely criticized as an erosion of constitutionally protected freedoms of expression, religion and assembly. On the other hand, it's also been accused of not going far enough to combat the rising tide of hate (particularly antisemitism) occurring in the nation.

Which is it? Is Canada’s Combating Hate Act an attempt to move the maple leaf toward Orwellian thought policing? Or is all the noise surrounding the proposed legislation much ado about nothing?

What is the Combating Hate Act?

The Combating Hate Act is a legislative instrument that seeks to amend the Criminal Code of Canada in the following ways:

1. Making it a crime to intimidate and/or obstruct individuals from accessing places of worship, schools, community centres, and other places primarily used by an identifiable group;
2. Making hate-motivated crime a specific offence rather than an aggravating sentencing factor;
3. Making it a crime to willfully promote hatred of an identifiable group by displaying certain terroristic or hate symbols in public; and
4. Removing the good faith religious defence in respect of the above.

Intimidation — Obstruction

Bill C-9 proposes amending the Criminal Code by adding the following section, which creates an offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.

423.‍3 (1) Every person commits an offence who engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in a person in order to impede their access to

(a) a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, that is primarily used

(i) for religious worship, or

(ii) by an identifiable group, as defined in subsection 318(4),

A. for administrative, social, cultural or sports activities or events,

B. as an educational institution, including a daycare centre, or

C. a residence for seniors; or

a cemetery.

Obstruction or interference with access

(2) Every person commits an offence who, without lawful authority, intentionally obstructs or interferes with another person’s lawful access to a building or structure, or part of a building or structure, referred to in paragraph (1)‍(a) or to a cemetery.

As the section states, actions which intimidate and impede a person’s access to various places (churches, synagogues, mosques, community halls, schools, etc) would become unlawful.

While not problematic on its face, the wording of this section raises questions. Section 2c of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of assembly. At what point does a protest rise to the level of criminality? The actu reus (the observable, physical, voluntary act that makes up the “bad thing”) isn’t clearly defined, especially as regards words like obstruction and interference. These words are very broad.

As worded, this section may unduly limit the right to assemble peacefully.

A New Hate-Motivated Crime Offence

Under the existing legislation, committing a crime motivated by hate is not a distinct offence. Rather, it’s a factor which is taken into account by the judge when determining sentencing. Simply put, an offender can receive a harsher punishment if the court determines their crime was motivated by hate.

Bill C-9 would elevate hate-motivated crime to a distinct crime, in addition to the underlying offence.

320.‍1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence — referred to in this section as the “included offence” — under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the included offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, is

(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the punishment provided for in subsection (5); or

(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Definition of hatred(2) In this section, hatred has the same meaning as in subsection 319(7)

This amendment is problematic on a number of fronts. First, the definition of hatred (hatred means an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation) is confusing, particularly when viewed alongside the “clarification” offered in subsection 3:

For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.

By their very nature, hate crimes will hurt, offend and/or humiliate victims. Stating that these alone are not sufficient to meet the definition of hatred does very little to define what does meet the definition.

Further, creating a new standalone offence in addition to the underlying offence may violate the Kineapple Principle, which prevents multiple convictions for the same act.

For example, under the proposed amendment, an offender could theoretically be convicted of an underlying offence (such as assault) and a hate-motivated crime (for being motivated to commit the assault by hatred of the victim based on any one of the enumerated categories of persons). Practically speaking, the court system will end up being forced to “pick an offence” to avoid violating Kineapple.

The system, as it currently stands, allows sentencing judges to impose harsher penalties for crimes motivated by hate.

Wilful Promotion of Hatred — Terrorist and Hate Symbols

The proposed amendments here strengthen the current wilful promotion of hatred provisions found in s. 319 of the Criminal Code by specifically adding the display of certain hate and/or terrorist symbols as an offence.

Removing Good Faith Religious Belief Defence

Under the current legislative framework, good faith religious belief is one of a handful of defences against a charge of wilful promotion of hatred. Section 319 (3) (b) states as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text.

Bill C-9 will remove this while maintaining the legitimate public purpose and pointing out “for the purpose of removal” defences. The proposed amended provisions read as follows:

(3.‍2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍2)

(a) if the display of the symbol was for a legitimate purpose, including a legitimate purpose related to journalism, education or art, that is not contrary to the public interest; or

(b) if, in good faith, the display of the symbol was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

The proposed changes have attracted much heated debate both in terms of the potential impact on freedom of religion and freedom of expression enshrined in sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some commentators have called them an attack on Christianity. While others see them as a necessary measure to effectively combat hate and hate-related offences (keeping in mind Charter rights are not absolute and can be limited pursuant to section 1, provided those limits are … “reasonable, prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”)

So, is Bill C-9 the Orwellian Boogeyman some make it out to be? Is Canada on its way to abandoning the freedom and values it was built on in favour of authoritarian thought policing?

I don’t think so.

There are definite issues with the bill as worded. Core terms such as hatred, obstruction and intimidation are poorly defined and confusing. This confusion has the potential to create unnecessary overreach into constitutionally protected activities.

The creation of a standalone offence for hate-motivated crime is not only unnecessary, but adds a needless layer of complication to an already overburdened judicial system.

Is it much ado about nothing? Not exactly, but it’s close.

Rather than using and enforcing the laws already on the books to combat hate crimes to their full extent, Bill C-9 looks like official hand-wringing and tail chasing at its finest.

In an attempt to be seen as doing something to combat the troubling rise in hateful speech, conduct and criminality, rather than taking meaningful action, what they’ve given us is a poorly drafted, confusing package of amendments, some of which have very little, if any, practical purpose.