What you need to know about changing Canadian Laws
Should people who commit a hate crime receive up to life imprisonment for it? The proposed Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act offers a vague description of a hate crime with increased punishment for it. While we can assume that the average person’s day-to-day conduct in society would not be classified as hateful, many Canadian citizens are concerned with the intentions and long-term effectiveness of the country’s laws, like Bill C-9.
What is Bill C-9 About?
What we refer to now as the Combating Hate Act is currently on hold as of January 26. Its first hearing was completed in September of 2025, and since then has caused social and political concern across the country. Among other bills being processed through parliament, this one evoked recurring social discussions such as: digital footprint safety, freedom of expression, and protection from various forms of discrimination.
The goal of Bill C-9 is to create criminal offense categories of intimidation and obstruction, which could have a max punishment of imprisonment. This brings legal repercussions to individuals who purposely inspire fear for members of “identifiable groups.” These repercussions would apply to anyone who inspires fear to access specific spaces and the use offensive or hateful symbols. The bill aims to create a functional definition of hatred, streamline the Attorney General consent process, and to make a hate motivated crime a specific offense.
Some people are concerned with how this bill could have legal consequences for the memes they share online. But realistically, the social media aspect of this bill is only a partial concern, due to the vague nature of this bill. The Canadian Bar Association expressed concern about the unintended consequences of implementing the bill, “particularly in light of the historical over-policing of marginalized communities.”
Some groups questioned if the current criminal code needs to be updated. The Canadian Constitution Foundation claims the bill was unsound from the start, and the problems became more glaring as it developed: “Rather than narrowly targeting violence or threats, it would have expanded criminal law into the realm of ordinary expression, lowered the threshold for criminal speech, and stripped away long-standing safeguards designed to protect Charter rights.”
Online discussions questioned how (and if) this bill will contribute to the safety of racial, religious and gender associated groups. The public concern comes from potential effects of this bill in public spheres such as social media, how the government will define the word “hatred,” and how this will affect people’s digital footprint and free speech.
So, what would social media users be allowed to post and share? Will the Bill protect these “identifiable groups” or create bigger issues for them? Is this Bill even needed? Overall, the response has been very negative. While the goal of this bill is to provide protection, the current guidelines of the bill leaves vague explanations of defining hate, and leaves a lot of room for government interpretation to intervene in these social problems. Currently the Bill is on hold, and Canadian citizens will continue to shift their focus towards the government’s actions, in hopes that laws such as this create a more effective and safe society.
