Initial bipartisan attempts to include language to that effect were rejected by the parliamentary justice committee
National Post
By Stephanie Taylor
Published Mar 17, 2026
OTTAWA — With the Liberals’ anti-hate bill set to return to the House of Commons next week, major Jewish advocacy groups are pressing the federal government to take action against what they see as the glorification and promotion of terrorism.
Canada’s criminal laws against terrorism, contained in Section 83 of the Criminal Code, deal specifically with the financing and direct participation in terrorist groups, as well as instructing others to carry out a terrorist activity.
That is narrower than in some other countries such as the United Kingdom, for example, where laws specifically target the glorification of terror and acts seen as promoting or encouraging terrorism.
Initial attempts by Liberal and Conservatives MPs to include language to that effect in the Liberal government’s pending Bill C-9 anti-hate legislation did not get past the parliamentary justice committee.
Jewish groups have been calling for the federal government to amend Canadian law to capture the glorification of terror amid a dramatic rise in police-reported antisemitic incidents in recent years. They include recent shootings of synagogues in Toronto, and a rash of anti-Israel protests where participants have applauded Hamas’s attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, in which 1,200 people were murdered and hundreds were taken hostage.
Last week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford attempted to halt an Al-Quds Day rally, an annual day of anti-Israel protest promoted by the Iranian regime, which he said “glorifies violence” and “celebrates terrorism.” Organizers rejected Ford’s assessment, describing it as a pro-Palestinian rally, and successfully fought the attempted ban in court.
“These kind of things make our community fearful, so we would love to see restrictions on things like promoting designated terrorist organizations and terrorism inside of Canada,” said Dylan Hanley, a senior vice president of public affairs at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.
He said his group has discussed the idea with Justice Minister Sean Fraser, as well as others within government.
“I think there is a recognition of the challenges that we face at this particular moment in time that are increasing in terms of threats from terrorism,” Hanley said.
“We are committed to ensuring law enforcement has the tools it needs to confront terrorism in all its forms,” said Lola Dandybaeva, a spokesperson for Fraser, in a statement.
“Canada has robust laws to address speech that facilitates or promotes terrorist activity, and we enforce them vigorously. Our government will always consider whether the law is keeping pace with evolving threats.”
Rich Robertson, research manager at B’nai Brith Canada, said his organization will continue to advocate for amendments to C-9 that deal specifically with terrorism.
“We’d like to see the criminalization of the glorification of terror. We’d like to see additional Criminal Code offences that make it more difficult for terrorist organizations to operate in Canada after they are listed as terrorist entities,” he said.
The Liberals tabled Bill C-9 in the fall to respond to concerns over rising reports of hate, particularly toward the Jewish community. It seeks to introduce new intimidation and obstruction offences for activities that take place around places of worship and other buildings where an identifiable group gathers. Prime Minister Mark Carney had promised the measures during last year’s federal election campaign.
The bill also seeks to make it an offence to wilfully promote hate by publicly displaying symbols linked to a government-designated terror entity, such as Hamas or Hezbollah.
Both Robertson and Hanley each say their organizations remain supportive of Bill C-9, with Robertson adding it is “a step in the right direction.”
“That being said, the passage of Bill C-9 does not mean that we can rest on our laurels as a society. There is much more legislative reform that is needed to prevent and fight against hatred and extremism and radicalization in this country,” he said.
Hanley said the Jewish community remains “in the midst of an unprecedented tidal wave of antisemitism.”
During debate over Bill C-9 at the parliamentary justice committee, Conservative MP Roman Baber and Liberal MP Anthony Housefather sought to include changes aimed at targeting the “wilful promotion of terrorism.”
Housefather ultimately withdrew his amendment, as what he was proposing was similar Baber’s proposal. The Liberal and Bloc MPs on the committee, which together formed the majority, rejected the amendments.
During initial debate on the idea, Housefather commended Baber for his efforts, saying that he shared “his desire for a Criminal Code clause that includes the wilful promotion of terrorist activities or the activities of a terrorist group.”
Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor who specializes in freedom of expression, cautioned against trying to legislate speech viewed as promoting or glorifying terror.
He said doing so would “raise difficult questions” around what could constitute as glorifying or celebrating terrorism and terrorist acts. As it stands, the current law criminalizes “counselling” someone to commit an act of terrorism, which is more specific, he said.
Moon provided the example of someone saying that they believed the U.S. “deserved” the 9/11 attacks because of its foreign policies.
“If I were to say that, would that count as celebrating or glorifying terrorists?” he said.
He noted that the Charter provides protection for political speech. While he said it may be “deeply offensive” for someone to make statements glorifying the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, Moon said it qualifies as “political speech.”
“As long as it doesn’t amount to very specifically encouraging people to engage in terrorist activity, I don’t see how we could justify its restriction in a way that’s compatible with the Charter and its protection of the right of individuals to engage in political speech.”
National Post
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect more accurately what became of the amendments proposed to the justice committee.