The Canadian parliament has passed a landmark anti-Islamophobia and religious discrimination motion that calls on politicians to condemn anti-Islamic behaviour and rhetoric.

The vote follows months of fierce debate in Canada, including protests from both the motion’s supporters and detractors.

Opponents argued the private members’ motion, which calls on the government to “condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination”, will limit free speech in the country and single out Islam for special treatment.

Liberal MPs and Conservatives accused one another of using rising levels of prejudice and hate crimes against Muslims in Canada as a political football.

The motion explicitly called on the government to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear”.

It also said there should be put into action a “government-wide approach for reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination”.

This would require the government to collect date on hate crimes, conduct official assessments of affected communities and present findings to parliament within eight months.

The non-binding motion, known as M-103 was passed by 201 votes to 91.

Liberal MP Irqa Khalid, who tabled the motion, was cheered loudly by her party as the vote passed.

The majority of Canada’s Conservative MPs voted against the motion.

Speaking after the vote, Ms Khalid told reporters: “I'm really happy that the vote today has shown positive support for this motion and I'm really looking forward to the committee taking on this study.”

Conservative MP David Anderson put forward an amendment to the motion to try and change the wording to include other religions. He argued the motion should be to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities”.

But the amendment was rejected by Liberals. Ms Khalid said: “Really, changing the wording of the motion would have watered it down and I think the committee can really look into this if it is an issue.”

Mr Anderson later said: “I think that many of us have wanted to have a mature discussion about this for a long time, and I think actually Ms Khalid and I would be on the exact same wavelength on that issue.”

The motion caused some confusion in Canada, with many believing it to be a “bill”, or a “law”.

Why we should all go to Canada Show all 8 1 /8 Why we should all go to Canada Why we should all go to Canada The great outdoors You might spot a moose, for goodness' sake Mark Rowland/Flickr Why we should all go to Canada Road trips You can drive through some of the most incredible scenery MaxGag/Flickr Why we should all go to Canada Maple syrup It's available in almost any form, including maple taffy - heated syrup that's been dropped on to ice to cool and turned into a kind of chewy lollypop Márcio Cabral de Moura/Flickr Why we should all go to Canada Friendly Cities The likes of Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto are not only cool, but welcoming too Getty Images Why we should all go to Canada Arctic cruises You can float between icebergs - enough said Shutterstock Why we should all go to Canada Skiing and snowboarding Resorts such as Whistler are world class Getty Images Why we should all go to Canada Real winter Canada really embraces the cold, with everything from igloo raves to husky rides EveryDamnNameIsInUse/Flickr Why we should all go to Canada Wine They make a pretty good tipple here Nomade Moderne/Flickr

On this issue the Canadian parliament’s guide to private members’ motions reads: “The first difference to keep in mind is in their effect. Since in agreeing to a motion expressing a resolution, the House is only stating an opinion, the government will not be bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action.