FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 26, 2026
Oakville, ON — Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, passed in the House of Commons last night with 186 Members of Parliament voting in favour, 137 opposed and 10 paired. The Liberals and Bloc Québécois voted in favour, while Conservatives and NDP largely opposed the bill.The Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council (CMPAC) expresses serious concern with both the substance of the legislation and the manner in which it was advanced.
The passage of this legislation, led by the Liberal government, represents a significant failure to adequately respond to credible, widespread, and sustained concerns raised throughout the legislative process. Broad opposition to Bill C-9 has been consistent and clear across Canada.
Despite repeated warnings and substantive concerns from legal experts, faith communities, labour groups, and civil liberties organizations, Bill C-9 was advanced without the level of scrutiny and deliberation that legislation of this consequence demands.
This bill raises serious and unresolved risks to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, including the removal of longstanding legal protections and the introduction of broadly defined offences related to “intimidation” and “obstruction.” The expansion of these provisions introduces a level of ambiguity that risks uneven and discriminatory enforcement, particularly for communities already subject to heightened scrutiny.
“Members of Parliament were clearly presented with the legal risks and the breadth of opposition to this bill,”said Khaled Alqazzaz, CMPAC executive director. “It is deeply concerning that these issues were not meaningfully addressed prior to passage. The responsibility of Members of Parliament is not only to legislate, but to ensure that legislation withstands constitutional scrutiny and does not erode the rights of the people it purports to protect. In this instance, that responsibility towards constituents has not been met.” Alqazzaz added.
While Bill C-9 has passed the House of Commons, it has not yet become law. Its progression to the Senate represents a critical juncture. The Senate must now undertake the rigorous, independent review that was lacking in the House and give full and serious consideration to the legal and constitutional implications of this bill. We remain hopeful that this next stage will provide an opportunity to correct the course and address the significant deficiencies that remain.
