Bill C-9

Combatting Hate Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences;
(b) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Combatting Hate Crime

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Rivière‑du‑Nord. I appreciated his speech.

In the member's view, how will police forces be able to tell when an action is motivated by hate?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

That is a great question, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying in my speech earlier, the definition of hate is a bit—

I hesitate to say ambiguous because I must admit that, if I were to write this myself, I would not have known where to start. That said, I will repeat the definition: “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike”.

That description is rather vague. In terms of enforcement, a decision would have to be made as to whether a particular individual carried out a specific action with hateful intent.

I wish the judges good luck.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be respectful. My question, specifically, is this. If we look at the turban, it is part of the identity of an individual. Is the member trying to say that, for example, a member of the RCMP should not be allowed to wear a turban? I am very interested in the Bloc's position on that in Canada.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very similar.

Lawyers who appear in court must wear a robe. Nurses must wear scrubs. There are dress codes for different professions. As for police officers, in my humble opinion, there should be secularism requirements in their dress code.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Newton.

I rise in firm support of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, not just as legislation, but as a promise this new Liberal government is delivering for Canadians. This is about more than law; it is about dignity, safety and belonging.

We campaigned on protecting vulnerable communities and confronting hate in all its forms, and that commitment demands action. Bill C-9 is our response to the urgent realities many Canadians face each day.

Recent data from Statistics Canada paints a stark picture: Police-reported hate crimes have more than doubled in the last six years. This increase has hit indigenous peoples, Black and racialized communities, religious minorities, 2SLGBTQI+ people, women and persons with disabilities especially hard, but we know the true story is far worse than even that.

Most hate crimes go unreported. Research suggests as many as four in five victims never contact the police. That means the numbers we are seeing are only the tip of the iceberg. Statistics do not capture the everyday fear, disruption and trauma. Behind each file are a person whose life is shaken and a community whose confidence is eroded.

Crimes motivated by hate are particularly corrosive. They do not just harm bodies. They attack identities. Their impacts ripple outward, damaging families' and entire communities' sense of safety and belonging.

Let me offer one powerful example. In 2024, Bais Chaya Mushka Girls Elementary School in Toronto was targeted in three separate shooting attacks. Luckily, no one was harmed, as the shootings occurred at times when the school was empty, but the emotional toll was severe. Students, staff and the broader Jewish community felt their sanctuary violated and their sense of security shattered. In response, every Jewish institution across the greater Toronto area reviewed security plans, training and monitoring. That is not just reaction; that is the cost of hate, even when physical violence is averted.

These attacks remind us that hate does not wait for opportunity. It strikes where people feel safe. It breeds anxiety, forces communities into defensive postures and thins the line between public life and fear. When hate is expressed as intimidation, threats, harassment and targeting of places of worship, the damage is intense. When access to cultural or faith-based spaces is blocked or obstructed, the harm is both symbolic and real.

Victims describe depression, post-traumatic stress and withdrawal from community life. Their routines collapse under the weight of fear. Communities, too, pay a heavy price. Divisions deepen, trust frays and participation wanes. Over time, community bonds weaken, social cohesion unravels and fragmentation spreads.

That is why Bill C-9 matters. In Canada, everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, should be able to live without fear. This bill answers the calls across the country for stronger protections for religious and cultural spaces, and for communities under threat. It proposes four new criminal offences, each targeted at a distinct danger.

Number one is intimidation or obstruction offences prohibiting those who intimidate or block access to places of worship, schools and community centres. These must be sanctuaries, not targets. The maximum sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment underscores how seriously we take this issue.

Number two is a hate-motivated offence, allowing any federal offence to carry an enhanced charge when motivated by hatred that is grounded in race, religion, sex or other things. This clearly condemns hate as more than a supplement. It is a central aggravating factor.

Number three is an offence for publicly displaying certain hate or terrorist symbols, deliberately with intent to promote hate. This includes symbols associated with listed terrorist groups and the Nazi hakenkreuz. We are not using that word regularly anymore. The more popular, commonly used word has become the Nazi “swastika”. That is why we need a religious exemption. As mentioned in this House previously, a lot of these symbols are linked to other religions and have a long historical past, so it is really important to communities to reclaim their words as well. The Nazi hakenkreuz and the SS bolts are symbols listed in this piece of legislation, but we are explicitly, as mentioned, protecting legitimate uses of these symbols for educational, religious, artistic and journalistic purposes from being caught by this law.

This bill also clarifies the definition of “hatred” using Supreme Court jurisprudence, so police, prosecutors and the public have clear guidance about where lawful expression ends and criminal hate begins. Moreover, Bill C-9 would remove the requirement that the Attorney General must personally consent for hate speech or propaganda charges, a change that gives law enforcement consistency, speed and certainty while retaining prosecutorial oversight.

In closing, this bill is about protecting communities, affirming dignity and sustaining the democratic values we promised to defend. It sends a potent message: Canada will not tolerate hatred, in word or in symbol, in our streets, our schools or our sacred places. This Liberal government campaigned on a promise to confront hate. With Bill C-9, we are acting on that promise. I urge all members to support it swiftly, so its protections may begin without delay.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my friend.

First, why does the government appear to be diluting the definition of “hatred”? The language the Supreme Court articulated, language that we have been relying on for 35 years, includes the words “extreme manifestations” before the words “detestation and vilification”. Why have these been dropped from the definition of “hatred”, thereby diluting the definition and lowering the threshold?

Second, is my friend not concerned that while removing the requirement for consent of the Attorney General, informants who lay charges by way of private prosecutions will be able to do so without any checks and balances, potentially politicizing the issue and targeting their political opponents?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to both of those questions is that the definition of “hatred” was not in the Criminal Code. This piece of legislation now defines it, but that does not do away with precedents of the courts. We have a common-law system in this country, and both the precedents of the court system and our Criminal Code are referred to when judges make decisions.

Prosecutorial oversight is still a thing. The majority of other criminal charges are laid by police of jurisdiction, except in provinces that have specifically given the right to Crown counsel to lay those charges. In particular, B.C. is one example. B.C. has a different system. However, Crown counsel are always able to make the decisions based on the evidence before them as to whether they are going to move forward with a charge in a court of law. Therefore, there is oversight.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have already mentioned, we want to retain some flexibility to amend or remove certain provisions of the bill, particularly those that could unreasonably restrict freedom of expression or the right to protest.

Among the provisions currently proposed, the Bloc is particularly concerned about the ones that would criminalize obstructing or interfering with people's access to certain places. We are going to take the time to review all of this, but we wonder whether this offence might conflict with the right to protest.

I would like to know whether the Liberals share our concerns in this regard.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this country, we have many designated places to protest, and when people approach a cultural institution or religious place of worship and choose that to be their place of protest, it not only hurts the sentiments of the worshippers in that place but creates conflict. We have seen that. I have seen it in my own community. It creates divisions within society.

I believe these are measures that many religious and minority groups have been calling for. We have seen a great rise in hate, hate speech, hate violence and hate crimes occurring in our communities. This bill would provide clear guidelines as to what is appropriate and what is not.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of weeks ago in my riding, a Jewish woman was stabbed while she was shopping in the kosher section of a grocery store. I have been meeting in living rooms with the Jewish community in my riding, and this is a culmination of what is a deplorable increase in anti-Semitism.

I wonder if the secretary of state could reassure my constituents, who are scared to even go out in public, with what this bill would do to improve things for them.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this piece of legislation would carry very stiff penalties. This crime has been accelerating at a pace that no other has, so it is really important to address it.

I hope all members across the House take this bill seriously and support it and will show the utmost sincerity when studying it in the committee process so that we can protect Canadians and make sure that incidents like the one the member referred to are a thing of the past. It is very tragic what we are dealing with.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a vital piece of legislation that would strengthen the Criminal Code to protect Canadians from acts of hatred, intimidation and obstruction in their communities.

The bill introduces amendments to address two urgent areas: first, the intimidation and obstruction of people accessing community spaces and, second, hate-motivated crimes. It would also clarify what constitutes hate and ensure law enforcement can respond quickly and effectively. Too many Canadians feel unsafe because of who they are, how they worship or where they gather. We have seen a rise in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Sikh hate, anti-Black racism, homophobia and transphobia. These are the realities faced by our neighbours, our families and our communities.

About 5,000 hate crimes were reported to police last year, but we know that most of these incidents are never reported, which means that the true number is far higher. Every one of these crimes is an attack not just on individuals but on the values of equality, dignity and respect that we hold dear as Canadians. Bill C-9 introduces targeted reforms that would give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to act while fully protecting the charter rights that Canadians value, including freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of protest.

The legislation is built on six pillars. The first pillar is a new obstruction offence. It would be illegal to block or interfere with lawful access to spaces such as religious institutions, cultural centres, schools, seniors' residences or cemeteries. No Canadian should face barriers when they are going to pray, taking their child to school or attending a cultural celebration. For example, it would be a crime to block the front of a synagogue to restrict access for worshippers or to set a fire at the entrance of a school. At the same time, peaceful protest remains fully protected. This is not about creating so-called bubble zones. Peaceful protests, chanting or holding signs is allowed. Only intentional obstruction or intimidation would be considered illegal.

The second pillar is a new intimidation offence. This would target behaviour designed to instill fear in people accessing those same spaces. We have seen cases in which masked individuals stood outside mosques or shouted threats at parents outside a religious school. These acts are intimidation, not protest, and they have no place in Canada.

The third pillar is a new hate crime offence. If someone commits any federal offence, whether under the Criminal Code or another law, and they do it out of hatred for a particular group, it would now be treated as a hate crime. This is about making sure hate-motivated actions are met with the seriousness that they deserve. The bill would also make it an offence to publicly display hate or terrorist symbols to promote hatred; it would remove the Attorney General consent required for hate propaganda charges so that police could move more quickly. When someone vandalizes a gurdwara out of hate or waves a Nazi flag at a rally, Canadians expect law enforcement to respond swiftly and decisively. Bill C-9 would ensure that this will happen.

The fourth pillar is to codify the definition of “hatred”. The bill would provide clarity so that police and courts know what is and what is not covered. Hatred means strong dislike or hostility toward a group, going beyond being rude, offensive or hurtful. This clear definition will help make the law fair and consistent across Canada.

The fifth pillar is streamlining hate propaganda charges. Right now, police need the Attorney General's consent before laying such charges. This step often delays justice. With Bill C-9, that barrier is removed, so law enforcement can act faster and communities are better protected.

The sixth pillar is a new prohibition on displaying hate and terror symbols. The new offence is carefully targeted. It applies only when such symbols are displayed with the intent to promote hatred against a particular group. The list of prohibited symbols is narrow and precise: the swastika and other symbols principally used by or associated with terrorist organizations listed under the Criminal Code.

Canadians should know this does not criminalize opinions or ordinary protest symbols; it is about only a small, closed list of hate and terror symbols displayed to promote hatred. This approach ensures the law is both clear and enforceable.

Let me summarize why this legislation is so important. Too many Canadians feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods, their own schools and their own places of worship. Bill C-9 makes it clear: Canada will not tolerate hate. We will not tolerate intimidation. We will not tolerate symbols of violence and terror being used to spread fear.

At the same time, this bill respects charter rights. Peaceful protest remains lawful. Political expression remains lawful. This is about stopping deliberate acts of hate, not silencing voices.

In my riding of Surrey Newton, I see every day how diversity makes us stronger. People of all backgrounds, whether Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist or many others, and even those who do not practise, live side by side and work together with respect, but I also hear from families who are worried when they see hate crimes on the rise. Parents are anxious about sending their children to school, and seniors are concerned about attending their places of worship. Canadians should never have to live with that fear.

This legislation equips law enforcement and prosecutors with the tools necessary to respond effectively to intimidation, obstruction, hate crimes and hate propaganda. It protects individuals, strengthens community safety and upholds the values that define Canada. I call on all members of this House to support Bill C-9 and stand with us in protecting the rights, freedoms and safety of all Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great concerns we have seen across the country is, as he has noted, the massive increase in anti-Semitism. I noticed he missed the massive increase in hate attacks on Christians, but on the issue of anti-Semitism, we have seen these horrible riots and protests in the streets, with people carrying vile signage saying “from the river to the sea”. We know “from the river to the sea” means the extermination of the Jewish people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Does the member opposite believe that “from the river to the sea” would be an issue of hate, and would Bill C-9 ban people carrying signs promoting “from the river to the sea”, the extermination of Jewish people in Canada?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Christians, I did mention places of worship, including churches. I will always keep on making sure that Christians are equally protected under Canadian law.

When it comes to displaying any symbol of hate that is attacking any of those communities I mentioned, whether it is the Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Muslim or Hindu community, it will not be tolerated. This bill would make sure that those symbols of hate are banned as acts of hatred that are offences under the law.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in our view, the offence of intimidation is probably the one that represents a truly important need. Among other things, it will make it easier to crack down on online hate speech.

Does my hon. colleague think that the current provisions on intimidation are sufficient? In his opinion, do police forces and prosecutors need more tools than what is being proposed?