Loading...
Canada deserves to know.
Loading...
The Liberals and Bloc voted together to pass the anti-hate bill and remove a decades-old religious speech defence. The Conservatives, NDP, and Greens all voted against. Here is what the bill does and why it divided Parliament.
On March 25, 2026, the House of Commons passed Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, by a vote of 186–137. The bill creates new Criminal Code offences related to hate symbols and hate speech, and removes a longstanding defence for statements made in good faith based on religious texts. The Liberal-Bloc coalition overcame opposition from the Conservatives, NDP, and Green Party.
| Party | Yea | Nay |
|---|---|---|
| Liberal(LPC) | 153 | — |
| Conservative(CPC) | — | 119 |
| Bloc Québécois(BQ) | 33 | — |
| New Democratic(NDP) | — | 15 |
| Green(GPC) | — | 3 |
| Total | 186 | 137 |
Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, amends the Criminal Code to create new offences related to the public display of hate symbols and the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. It also updates existing hate propaganda provisions that have been in place since the 1970s.
The bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice and passed third reading on March 25, 2026. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.
The House divided 186–137 at third reading. Every Liberal and Bloc Québécois MP present voted in favour. Every Conservative, NDP, and Green MP present voted against.
This was an unusual alignment. The NDP typically supports anti-hate measures, and the Conservatives and NDP rarely find themselves on the same side of a recorded division. The split reflects the specific controversy around the bill's treatment of religious expression rather than disagreement about combatting hate itself.
An earlier procedural vote on March 10 to close debate passed 186–144 along the same Liberal-Bloc lines, with Elizabeth May of the Greens joining the Conservatives and NDP in opposition.
The most contentious provision is the removal of Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which currently provides a defence for statements made "in good faith" that are "based on a belief in a religious text." This defence has been in Canadian law since 1970.
The government argues the defence is overly broad and has been used to shield genuinely hateful speech. The Bloc Québécois made the removal of the religious exemption a condition of its support for the bill.
Critics, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argue that removing the defence could have a chilling effect on religious expression. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Bishops of Canada, and evangelical organizations have all issued statements opposing the change.
The NDP opposed the bill specifically because of the removal of the religious exemption, despite supporting the bill's other anti-hate provisions.
Beyond the religious exemption issue, Bill C-9 introduces several new measures:
A new offence for the public display of symbols associated with hate groups or terrorism, punishable by up to two years in prison. The specific symbols to be prohibited would be designated by regulation.
An expanded definition of "identifiable group" to explicitly include gender identity and expression, which were added to the Criminal Code's hate provisions in 2017 but not to all relevant sections.
A new provision allowing courts to order the removal of online hate content, with penalties for non-compliance by platform operators.
Increased maximum sentences for existing hate propaganda offences, from two years to five years for wilful promotion of hatred.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns beyond the religious exemption. The organization argues that the bill's provisions on hate symbols could criminalize legitimate political protest if symbols are used in counter-demonstrations or educational contexts.
Legal scholars have noted that the bill's definition of "hatred" remains the same as the Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 definition in Saskatchewan v. Whatcott, which requires more than mere dislike or offence. But critics argue the expanded offences and higher sentences could still discourage legitimate expression at the margins.
The bill does retain other defences under Section 319(3), including for private conversations, good faith opinions on religious subjects (as distinct from reliance on religious texts), and statements relevant to the public interest.
Bill C-9 moves to the Senate, where it will undergo second reading, committee study, and third reading. The Senate has the power to amend the bill, which would send it back to the House for consideration of those amendments.
Senate committees have signalled they intend to hear from religious organizations, civil liberties groups, and legal experts before proceeding. The timeline for Senate consideration is not yet determined.
Parliament Audit will track the bill through the Senate and publish the recorded vote when it occurs.
A rare private member’s bill with all-party support would make killing an intimate partner automatic first-degree murder and give courts new tools to assess risk before bail.
The Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Act received royal assent on March 26. Rights groups call it the biggest rollback of refugee protections in a decade.
The Lawful Access Act is back in Parliament with new powers for police and secret orders for telecom providers. Here is what it means for your privacy.
About this article
This article is based on publicly available legislative documents, government backgrounders, and expert analysis. Parliament Audit is non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose any legislation. All sources are linked above.
You're welcome to run this article in full on your newsroom, blog, newsletter, or paper. Keep the byline and the link back to parliamentaudit.ca. See the full terms.
<!-- Parliament Audit — republished under CC BY-ND 4.0 -->
<article>
<h1>Bill C-9 Passed 186–137: What the Combatting Hate Act Actually Changes</h1>
<p><em>By Parliament Audit · April 15, 2026 · 6 min read</em></p>
<p><strong>On March 25, 2026, the House of Commons passed Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, by a vote of 186–137. The bill creates new Criminal Code offences related to hate symbols and hate speech, and removes a longstanding defence for statements made in good faith based on religious texts. The Liberal-Bloc coalition overcame opposition from the Conservatives, NDP, and Green Party.</strong></p>
<h2>What Is Bill C-9?</h2>
<p>Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, amends the Criminal Code to create new offences related to the public display of hate symbols and the promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. It also updates existing hate propaganda provisions that have been in place since the 1970s.</p>
<p>The bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice and passed third reading on March 25, 2026. It now moves to the Senate for consideration.</p>
<h2>The Vote</h2>
<p>The House divided 186–137 at third reading. Every Liberal and Bloc Québécois MP present voted in favour. Every Conservative, NDP, and Green MP present voted against.</p>
<p>This was an unusual alignment. The NDP typically supports anti-hate measures, and the Conservatives and NDP rarely find themselves on the same side of a recorded division. The split reflects the specific controversy around the bill's treatment of religious expression rather than disagreement about combatting hate itself.</p>
<p>An earlier procedural vote on March 10 to close debate passed 186–144 along the same Liberal-Bloc lines, with Elizabeth May of the Greens joining the Conservatives and NDP in opposition.</p>
<h2>The Religious Exemption Controversy</h2>
<p>The most contentious provision is the removal of Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which currently provides a defence for statements made "in good faith" that are "based on a belief in a religious text." This defence has been in Canadian law since 1970.</p>
<p>The government argues the defence is overly broad and has been used to shield genuinely hateful speech. The Bloc Québécois made the removal of the religious exemption a condition of its support for the bill.</p>
<p>Critics, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, argue that removing the defence could have a chilling effect on religious expression. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Bishops of Canada, and evangelical organizations have all issued statements opposing the change.</p>
<p>The NDP opposed the bill specifically because of the removal of the religious exemption, despite supporting the bill's other anti-hate provisions.</p>
<h2>What the Bill Creates</h2>
<p>Beyond the religious exemption issue, Bill C-9 introduces several new measures:</p>
<p>A new offence for the public display of symbols associated with hate groups or terrorism, punishable by up to two years in prison. The specific symbols to be prohibited would be designated by regulation.</p>
<p>An expanded definition of "identifiable group" to explicitly include gender identity and expression, which were added to the Criminal Code's hate provisions in 2017 but not to all relevant sections.</p>
<p>A new provision allowing courts to order the removal of online hate content, with penalties for non-compliance by platform operators.</p>
<p>Increased maximum sentences for existing hate propaganda offences, from two years to five years for wilful promotion of hatred.</p>
<h2>Civil Liberties Concerns</h2>
<p>The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has raised concerns beyond the religious exemption. The organization argues that the bill's provisions on hate symbols could criminalize legitimate political protest if symbols are used in counter-demonstrations or educational contexts.</p>
<p>Legal scholars have noted that the bill's definition of "hatred" remains the same as the Supreme Court of Canada's 2013 definition in Saskatchewan v. Whatcott, which requires more than mere dislike or offence. But critics argue the expanded offences and higher sentences could still discourage legitimate expression at the margins.</p>
<p>The bill does retain other defences under Section 319(3), including for private conversations, good faith opinions on religious subjects (as distinct from reliance on religious texts), and statements relevant to the public interest.</p>
<h2>What Happens Next</h2>
<p>Bill C-9 moves to the Senate, where it will undergo second reading, committee study, and third reading. The Senate has the power to amend the bill, which would send it back to the House for consideration of those amendments.</p>
<p>Senate committees have signalled they intend to hear from religious organizations, civil liberties groups, and legal experts before proceeding. The timeline for Senate consideration is not yet determined.</p>
<p>Parliament Audit will track the bill through the Senate and publish the recorded vote when it occurs.</p>
<hr />
<p><small>
Originally published by <a href="https://parliamentaudit.ca/news/bill-c9-combatting-hate-act-religious-exemption">Parliament Audit</a>
under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND 4.0</a> license.
<img src="https://parliamentaudit.ca/api/republish-beacon?slug=bill-c9-combatting-hate-act-religious-exemption" alt="" width="1" height="1" />
</small></p>
</article>