Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem
Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem
Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem
Feb 19, 2026
In recent weeks, public discourse in Canada has turned sharply toward Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act. On its face, it sounds reasonable: strengthen our ability to address hate crimes and online hate speech.
But protecting Canadians from real harm is not the same thing as expanding criminal law into areas that are already covered by existing legislation — and that expansion carries real risks to charter rights, free expression, and ordinary citizens.
This isn’t a fringe concern. It’s a constitutional concern.
⚖️ Canadian law already addresses hate conduct ⚖️
Canada’s Criminal Code already contains robust provisions to deal with hate-motivated offences:
- Section 318 prohibits advocating genocide.
- Section 319 makes it a criminal offence to publicly incite hatred or willfully promote hatred against identifiable groups.
- Separate provisions exist for threats, intimidation, and mischief based on protected characteristics.
Courts have used these provisions to convict individuals engaged in actual harm, not merely offensive speech. Law-enforcement agencies already have the tools they need to prosecute violent conduct, including hate-motivated violence.
In other words: we are not defending a legal vacuum. The current law already covers serious criminal conduct.
Bill C-9 expands, rather than clarifies, legal discretion
One of the most troubling changes proposed by Bill C-9 is the removal of the requirement that the Attorney General’s consent be obtained before hate-propaganda charges proceed.
For decades, this safeguard ensured that prosecutors would exercise legal judgment and discretion before bringing charges involving nuanced and sensitive issues of expression. Removing this gatekeeper opens the door to expanded prosecution — and potential misuse — of criminal laws against speech.
That’s not theoretical. It’s legal advice echoed by civil-liberties organizations who warn that discretion without checks inevitably leads to inconsistent and ideologically skewed enforcement.
This is not about protecting extremists — it’s about ensuring that ordinary citizens are not drawn into criminal proceedings for controversial but non-violent expression.
The definitions remain unclear — and that matters
Bill C-9 attempts to define “hatred” more precisely, but precision in law enforcement isn’t created simply by putting words on paper. Many terms remain subjective and open to interpretation.
What one person sees as strong political opinion, another might see as “hate.” Historically, courts have been cautious about defining these concepts because:
- Context matters,
- Intention matters,
- And words have different meanings in different settings.
Yet Bill C-9 lowers the threshold for criminal charges and shifts the burden toward the speaker — not the listener.
That’s why legal scholars worry that the threat of prosecution — even if convictions are rare — can chill free speech, peaceful protest, and legitimate debate.
Removing the “good-faith” safeguard is dangerous
Currently, the Criminal Code contains a section — Section 319(3) — that protects statements made in a good-faith attempt to describe or discuss religious texts or beliefs, even if those statements might offend.
A recent committee vote accepted an amendment that would remove this defence entirely. This has profound implications:
- Reading from religious scripture in a devotional context could be misinterpreted as “promoting hatred.”
- Preachers, teachers, and authors could be exposed to criminal investigation for discussing sacred texts.
This “removal of the good-faith defence” isn’t a minor technical tweak — it’s a substantive change that affects how ordinary citizens engage in religious and philosophical discourse.
This matters because free expression is a foundation of Canadian democracy
The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that freedom of expression is protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection includes speech that is controversial, offensive, or unpopular, so long as it doesn’t directly cause harm.
Bill C-9 tilts the balance toward criminalization of speech that is non-violent and controversial — and in doing so, it risks eroding confidence in our legal system as a protector of fundamental rights, not a weapon against dissent.
We do not have to choose between safety and freedom. But we do have to defend the established legal framework that already holds violent and threatening conduct to account.
What citizens can do now
Parliamentarians are elected to represent the views and interests of Canadians. When a bill touches on core freedoms, citizens have every right — and every reason — to engage:
- Speak to your Member of Parliament.
- Get involved!
- Ask hard questions about charter rights.
- Encourage thoughtful, evidence-based debate rather than reactionary politics.
Our rights are not granted by Parliament — they are protected by law and deserve protection from overreach.
In closing
Bill C-9 may be well-intentioned in its aspirations, but intention is not law.
We do not need legislation that duplicates existing protections.
We should not accept laws that expand criminal liability in ways that chill free expression and jeopardize civil liberties.
A strong democracy protects people from harm, but also from the overreach of its own institutions.
Let’s defend both.
