There’s some decent jurisprudence on the laws; and an old (2011) CBC article on it.
The (edit: de-one-boxed) very right wing National Post is weighing in as well with some more history on the topic; the hate-speech law died once in parliament only to be revived by our Supreme Court.
Where I think the current 
bill is missing the point is where liability could also fix this problem, as well as a number of others we have that arise from overly powerful, under-moderated platforms. The rise of platforms which provide a huge audience and have algorithmic drivers was not anticipated by Section 230 of the CDA. Legal protection under Section 230 has been bounded already, but I think some new limits are warranted given the newer technology.
Were for-profit platforms legally liable for content when they branded it under their own masthead, monetized it and/or recommended it, then the business model for the Twitters and Facebooks of the world would quickly collapse, taking the bulk of the current problems with them.
We’d probably need some stronger data resale and protection/leak penalty laws to seal the deal.
Monitoring smaller, hate-focused groups on line would then be easier. They would be driven to smaller, specialized on-line forums, which would limit the reach of those groups (both the organic or foreign influenced type), and their influence to sway the merely discontented would be much weaker.
