Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act, has passed third reading in the House of Commons and second reading in the Senate. It is now before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for further review.
May 29, 2026
The Free Speech Union of Canada appeared before the committee to make the case that the Bill should be dropped in its entirety, or at least tightened up, as it risks criminalizing legitimate forms of political expression and peaceful assembly. Some earlier panelists asked the Senate to use the opportunity to make the Bill go even further — criminalizing residential school denialism or adding other specific symbols, for example. The FSUC strongly warned the Senate committee against going down this path.
Watch this video to see the testimony, read the oral submission, or read the brief below.
Vidéo
Oral Statement on Bill C9. Ottawa, May 28, 2026
“Good afternoon, Senators, and thank you for the invitation. My name is Lisa Bildy, and I am the Executive Director of the Free Speech Union of Canada, a non-partisan, membership-based organisation dedicated to defending freedom of expression. The FSUC’s submissions are focused on the deleterious impact that Bill C-9 would have on expressive rights.
I will touch on a few of those concerns, first with respect to hate symbols. Symbols are a form of expression. Criminalizing them is an extraordinary step, and this Bill does so in a way that is opaque, vague and prone to politicization.
There is no statutory list of prohibited symbols. Instead, the definition depends on association with whatever groups the Minister of Public Safety has placed on the terrorist list. That makes the scope of criminalized expression inherently political.
Most listed groups do not have recognizable symbols. There is no requirement that a symbol be notorious, widely understood, or uniquely associated with a terrorist entity. A person could face prosecution for displaying a symbol at a protest without knowing it has been co-opted by a listed group. As drafted, it appears that the act of displaying the symbol is all that is necessary to establish the wilful promotion of hatred. That is incredibly overbroad.
While there is an exception for “legitimate purposes,” it doesn’t permit symbolic co-option for legitimate political expression. For example, a meme sometimes seen online places four of the Progress Pride flags in such a manner that the triangles resemble a Nazi Hakenkreuz – this is political expression against what some Canadians see as an increasingly oppressive ideology, but in the current political climate it could be characterized as hate and under Bill C-9 would invite criminal charges.
And symbols evolve. In the U.K., there have been news stories about the St. George’s flag — a centuries-old emblem of English heritage — being removed from public places by authorities because some groups used it in anti-immigration protests. Here in Canada, historic flags such as the Red Ensign are treated as suspect by some, like the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, even though most Canadians display them out of pride, not hate. Under Bill C-9, it is easy to imagine such flags becoming criminalized by association with nationalist groups that could be politically targeted by the government.
The new intimidation offence criminalizes “any conduct” intended to provoke a state of fear in order to impede access to certain locations. “Any conduct” means the actus reus is always met. The offence then turns on the probable subjective mental state of another person — is it intent to provoke a state of fear of violence, or a fear that someone might say something offensive? How much fear is required?
This low threshold risks capturing ordinary protest activity, which can by its nature be somewhat intimidating, especially on contentious issues. Criminal offences must be clear, objective, and narrowly tailored. This one is not.
The obstruction offence effectively creates protected sites used by certain “identifiable groups.” This abandons the content-neutral principles that protect expressive freedom. Some topics of protest will be disproportionately restricted, and Canadians may find themselves unable to criticize “protected” ideologies, in locations where their protests would have most impact and relevance.
The breadth and subjectivity of these provisions serve another purpose: they give authorities flexible tools to deploy against unpopular protests or political opponents. We have already seen selective enforcement in recent years. Some hatred is tolerated; other hatred is punished. That is not the rule of law.
As philosopher Bertrand Russell rather cynically observed, “People seem good while they are oppressed, but they only wish to become oppressors in their turn.” That dynamic was evident in earlier panels calling for the Bill to go even further. The impulse is not merely to stop “hate” (as if one could stop a basic human emotion) but to stop criticism, offence, dissent, and even factual disagreement.
Criminalizing “denialism” of contested perspectives — whether on residential schools, gender ideology, or critical race theory — is a road Canada must not go down.
We must hold fast to foundational principles, especially in polarized times. Freedom of expression matters because:
- It is the most effective check on abuses of power.
- It enables the search for truth, even when truth is uncomfortable.
- It provides a peaceful outlet for grievances, reducing the risk of violence.
- It exposes bad ideas to scrutiny, allowing society to challenge and defeat them.
- Neutral principles protect everyone. As Minister Fraser acknowledged last week, these tools could easily be used against environmentalists or other activists when political winds shift.
- It fosters dialogue and social cohesion. Criminal law cannot manufacture harmony; only open debate and dialogue can.
Bill C-9 risks eroding Canadians’ most fundamental freedom. Criminal law should target conduct, not expression; violence, not dissent; and incitement, not unpopular opinion.
Our specific amendments and more detailed commentary are contained in our written brief. Thank you. I welcome your questions.”
Lisa Bildy, Executive Director FSUC
