The Liberal government’s controversial anti-hate bill is expected to clear Parliament and become law before the summer recess.

The Liberals are set to accept the sole Senate amendment to Bill C-9, which added nooses as a prohibited symbol under the Criminal Code.

A spokesperson for Justice Minister Sean Fraser said the government accepted the change because the “noose has a specific and painful history as a symbol of anti-Black hate, intimidation, and violence.”

“Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it, recognizing the harm it causes, and ensuring our laws reflect the lived realities of Black communities,” Jeremy Bellefeuille said in a statement.

“Black Canadians deserve to know that their government sees that reality and is taking it seriously. This amendment helps make clear that symbols used to wilfully promote hatred have no place in Canada.”

Sen. Wanda Thomas Bernard’s amendment to Bill C-9 was the only one to pass at third reading last Thursday, after the chamber rejected the report on the bill from the human rights committee.

It’s unclear when the government will move a motion in the House to respond to the Senate change, but a Liberal source said it might not happen until next week.

Since the bill was amended, the House has to pass a motion to align that chamber’s version of C-9 with the one passed by the Senate. Once that happens, it can receive royal assent.

Bill C-9 has faced a turbulent path through Parliament, complete with Conservative filibusters at committee protesting the removal of the religious belief exemption for hate speech offences.

As originally drafted, Bill C-9 was designed to give the police new powers to stop harassment campaigns targeting people as they visit places of worship, popularly known as a “bubble law.”

It came directly from a Liberal campaign promise in the run-up to last year’s election, largely in response to criticism over anti-Israel protesters behaving aggressively towards Jewish residents and making chants glorifying violence against Jews.

The bill became the subject of intense Conservative opposition after the Liberals accepted the Bloc Quebecois amendment to remove the religious exemption from hate speech offences. The Conservatives warned that it risked criminalizing religious teachings, though the Liberals countered freedom of religion is protected by the Charter and the exemption has never been successfully used.

In an effort to address these concerns, the Liberals passed a clarifying amendment at committee that said the hate speech law wouldn’t apply to anyone making a statement on a “matter of public interest” in the course of a “discussion, publication or debate.” However, the amendment makes it clear that it doesn’t apply to someone making comments denying or downplaying the Holocaust.

But with the Conservative filibuster not relenting, the Liberals partnered with the Bloc earlier this spring to pass a motion to curtail debate on the bill and push it across the finish line in the House.

When it moved to the Senate, the chamber’s human rights committee made several changes, but shot down an amendment from Conservative Sen. Yonah Martin aimed at restoring the exemption. Martin introduced a similar amendment at third reading that sought to shield ‘good faith’ arguments based around religious teachings, but the Senate rejected it in a decisive vote.

READ MORE: Senate passes anti-hate bill but rejects proposal to criminalize residential school denialism

A version of Bernard’s amendment — which included white-pointed hoods — was originally passed at committee, but it needed to be reintroduced after the report was voted down by the wider Senate.

That vote also killed Nunavut Sen. Nancy Karetak-Lindell’s amendment that would criminalize condoning, denying or downplaying the Indian residential school system. But the Senate opted against restoring this amendment at third reading.

The language largely mirrors the wilful promotion of antisemitism offence in the Criminal Code. This criminalizes anyone from making public statements that condone, deny or downplaying the Holocaust.

Bellefeuille called Indian Residential School denialism a “serious and distinct issue,” and noted the government has “consistently said this issue warrants dedicated further parliamentary study, developed in genuine consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples.”

But he said the proposed amendment “does not fit within the scope of what the Combatting Hate Act was designed to do.”

The bill, Bellefeuille added, was focused on responding to “rise in hate by protecting access to places of worship, schools, cultural centres, and community spaces from intimidation and obstruction, and by strengthening laws against hate crimes.”