while canada has a constitutional right to free speech, our constitution has a clause that allows for it's suspension under the application of something called an oakes test. the canadian law in question is not restricted by the charter right to free speech in canada, but is explicitly intended to apply to political activity. 

promoting hatred against identifiable groups is only prohibited when it is (1) done in public (it doesn't apply to private communication, which is free speech) and (2) has a potential to lead to real foreseeable harm. standing on an empty stage and calling for the final solution isn't going to get you prosecuted. the prohibition against targeting identifiable groups is only intended to apply to actors with a real audience, that have a real possibility of taking power and that have the means to seriously apply real harm. further, that harm needs to be imminent and real.

all of these factors apply to the campaign in question, and to the candidate's reaction to very real terrorist attacks targeting the jewish community in michigan. it wouldn't be a slam dunk case, but el-sayed's campaign is legitimately exactly what the law was written to address and prohibit and, depending on the judge, it might have resulted in conviction and jail time.