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 Act

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nunavut.

Today, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, which proposes reforms to the Criminal Code to better protect access to religious and cultural sites and combat the rise of hate in Canada at a critical time.

In 2014, the police recorded 1,295 hate crimes. By 2024, that number had risen sharply to 4,882. Hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity saw a particularly sharp increase, rising from 611 cases in 2014 to 2,377 cases in 2024. Similarly, hate crimes based on religion increased significantly, from 429 cases in 2014 to 1,342 cases in 2024.

Since 2020, the Black community has been the most frequently targeted population for hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity, accounting for 37% of hate crimes in 2024. In 2024, most police-reported hate crimes targeting religion were directed at the Jewish community at 68% and the Muslim community at 17%.

These figures and statistics tell only part of the story. The sad reality is that no community is immune to hate. We continue to hear that Canadians no longer feel safe in places of worship, learning and gathering, or in simple day-to-day life. The government is deeply concerned about this situation and has been very clear that it will take successive measures to improve public safety. Bill C-9 is the next step in this regard.

Let me be very clear. Regardless of an individual's background or who they are, if Canada is their home, then they deserve to live here in peace and free of hatred.

Media reports also continue to highlight the human cost of the spread of hate in our communities. I wish I could say the examples are few. Within the past two years, reports on threats and attacks at places of worship, community centres and religious schools, as well as hate-motivated crime more generally, continue to become more commonplace.

To take but a few examples, reporting from Global News, CBC and the Montreal Gazette during this time includes shootings and attacks on and at synagogues and mosques, evacuations of Jewish schools and Muslim community centres because of bomb threats and reports of attacks against Muslim taxi drivers and women wearing a hijab.

While these particular media stories focus on anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents, we know members of other communities in Canada share similar experiences of hate-motivated conduct, including because they are indigenous, because of the colour of their skin, because of the god they worship or because of who they love. I want to be clear: These incidents are abhorrent and do not reflect the values of Canadian society.

While Canada will always be a place to come together and, at times, disagree on issues, there is no place for intimidation and violence in our homes or where communities gather.

This disturbing rise in hate in Canada, and indeed around the world, must be met with strong condemnation and unity.

At this point, I want to assure my colleagues and all Canadians that there will always be room to have difficult conversations and express our disagreement, and that includes exercising freedom of expression and putting it into practice during lawful protests.

While this bill is a robust response to hateful behaviour, the proposed reforms have been carefully designed to ensure that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are not unreasonably restricted. This bill does not prevent anyone from protesting or expressing opinions or concerns about an issue.

I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the measures proposed in Bill C‑9 to demonstrate how they will support the legal system in responding to these disturbing trends, while respecting our shared rights and values.

Bill C‑9 proposes to enact four new Criminal Code offences that will provide clear but appropriate tools for investigators, Crown prosecutors and judges assigned to cases involving these offences.

To address reports of intimidation, harassment, threats and violence at neighbouring religious and cultural institutions, Bill C‑9 proposes to create a specific intimidation offence that prohibits any conduct aimed at instilling fear in someone for the purpose of impeding access to their place of worship or to a place primarily used by an identifiable group for certain purposes.

The bill also proposes to create an offence prohibiting anyone from intentionally impeding access to those same places.

These two new proposed offences will help ensure that police have clear tools to intervene when the behaviour of certain individuals crosses a line and becomes criminal activity in relation to these places.

To be clear, nothing in the two proposed offences would prohibit or restrict the right of individuals to protest in or near these places. These offences apply to criminal conduct. Threats of violence are not forms of peaceful expression or assembly protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, if anyone attempts to disrupt a peaceful protest through violence, police can respond appropriately without infringing on the rights of the protesters to express their opinion on a particular issue.

To be clear on this point, the bill specifically includes a defence for any person who attends at or near a place for the sole purpose of obtaining or communicating information. This type of defence already exists for similar offences and its application is clear and well known in the context of protests and picketing activities. As long as it is done in a peaceful manner and access to the place is not significantly impacted, this behaviour would not be targeted by the new proposed offence.

The bill also proposes creating a new hate propaganda offence related to the public display of certain hate and terrorist symbols. I want to assure my colleagues that this is not a blanket ban on symbols, but rather an offence of limited scope that applies exclusively to the public display of symbols deliberately used to promote hate targeting identifiable groups. The offence has been carefully worded and will not apply to public displays of such symbols for legitimate purposes, such as journalistic, educational or artistic purposes.

In addition to these specific offences, Bill C‑9 also proposes to create a new hate crime offence. To address the overall rise of hate in Canada, this new offence would strongly denounce and deter all hate-motivated crimes. This is an important new tool for police and Crown prosecutors across the country.

The new hate crime offence would make it a criminal offence to commit unlawful acts motivated by hate based on such grounds as race, ethnic origin, religion or sex. It would apply generally to the commission of an offence under the Criminal Code or an act of Parliament and would include stiffer penalties depending on the severity of the offence.

Bill C-9 strengthens Canada's legal arsenal against hatred and sends a clear signal that hate has no place in our communities. It is the sincere hope of this government and myself that we can come together to consider and study this bill with the aim of making Canada a safer place for all people who live here.

I urge all members to join me in supporting these essential measures.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the parliamentary secretary has a copy of the Criminal Code handy, but I know she is a lawyer, and I want to ask her whether she agrees that hate symbols are already covered under subsection 319(2) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to the wilful promotion of hatred, by virtue of the list enumerated in subsection 319(7) of the Criminal Code, which talks about communicating “statements”, which have been interpreted by the courts as very broad and including symbols.

Would the parliamentary secretary acknowledge that?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not have the Criminal Code with me, but I would tell my colleague opposite that the intent of this law is to regulate and legislate people who have the wilful intent to obstruct and intimidate people who want access to places of worship, religion, community centres and schools.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, intimidation-related offences are probably one of the most urgent issues right now. We see that with online bullying. Bill C‑9 is relatively weak. We in the Bloc believe it could go further in that regard. Obviously, we will be proposing amendments to that effect in committee.

I would like to know why the government seems to have limited its own ability to intervene in order to prevent offences, particularly with regard to online bullying and intimidation.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course, once this bill is being studied at committee, our colleagues will have the opportunity to discuss it and hear from experts on these topics.

We believe that this bill will be well received. I hope the Bloc Québécois will support it so that we can pass and implement this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague has put on the record. I wonder if she could amplify one fact. We made an election commitment to bring forward legislation of this nature. One of the things we have been very aggressive on with the new Prime Minister and the new government is looking at legislative measures that support our election platform, whether it is the tax break, the one Canadian economy or bail reform.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on how important it is that this legislation go to the committee stage as part of our platform?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, as mentioned in my speech, we have seen a rise in hate crime in the last few years, and it is time that this question be addressed and that we adopt this law to be able to protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This is a platform promise that we made and that this government engaged itself in, and we intend for this legislation to see the light of day.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I look at this legislation, I have to agree with the Conservative MP who earlier asked the hon. member if we did not agree that the Criminal Code already covers the offences that are described in this bill relating to symbols. As we are looking at the question of limiting free speech or accidental inferences that there is a hate crime being committed, I would ask the hon. member if those on the Liberal benches could put forward a clear explanation of what additional protections this bill offers that were not already covered by existing hate crime laws.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code currently contains four hate propaganda offences in sections 318 to 319. The bill proposes to create a new, fifth, hate propaganda offence that would make it a crime to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group by publicly displaying certain symbols, including symbols principally used by association with terrorist entities that are listed under the Criminal Code, such as the swastika, the Nazi double rune, also known as the SS bolts—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We do have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I join this debate on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, as the voice of Nunavut and as a member of the NDP.

The NDP believes the federal government must take comprehensive action to fight the rising tide of hate in Canada. Almost 5,000 hate crimes were reported in 2024. Police-reported hate crimes motivated by race or ethnicity are up 19% from 2022. Yes, we need to combat hate, but we do not need to criminalize people speaking up, and we definitely do not need to keep them jailed for longer.

I am disappointed that this bill does not address the violent activities of the growing white nationalist movement. The Liberals' failure to include that aspect in this bill leaves racialized communities, indigenous communities and the 2SLGBTQIA+ community without the necessary tools to combat the largest source of hatred in Canada.

We are in polarizing times, for many reasons. People are either for or against Palestine. They are either for or against Israel. Indeed, our political system is getting close to only being Liberal or Conservative. Our public discourse must not give us fear that we will be criminalized. Our religious beliefs should not spread hate. This bill seems to be more about criminalizing people who speak out than it is about addressing the growing racism against racialized people.

There are existing laws that address hate, calling into question the real purpose of this bill. Hate is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. This bill would increase maximum sentences if an offence is motivated by hate. What would that raise sentences to? It would raise them to five years, 10 years, 14 years and even up to life imprisonment. We are entering a debate where imprisonment is made easier and made longer when, at the same time, we are hearing about an impending austerity budget.

In fact, there are already existing provisions in the Criminal Code addressing situations involving a crime near places of worship. I draw members' attention to the following sections in the Criminal Code: subsection 176(2), “Disturbing religious worship or certain meetings”; subsection 430(4.1), “Mischief relating to religious property”; section 264, “Criminal harassment”; section 264.1, “Uttering threats”; and section 423, “Intimidation”.

New Democrats are concerned with vague language in this bill, because once broad definitions are on the books, they can easily be weaponized against groups. For example, how will intimidating behaviours be interpreted by police? In its current form, the bill has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.

We know that listing groups on the terror list is a highly political decision, ultimately up to cabinet discretion. New Democrats are concerned that the section of this bill dealing with hate symbols would create a risk that a future government could put forward a new terror list for political purposes to appease certain groups that could then be caught under this provision.

Let me break down some of these concerns a bit more. Surrounding law enforcement, it gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity. Charging people with a hate crime carries a stigma that follows the person for life. If the charge is later dropped, the stigma will remain with the person.

There is the issue of vagueness. What are intimidating behaviours? How will they be defined or interpreted by police? Once broad definitions are on the books, they can be easily weaponized against groups. Hate is already an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code of Canada, as I said earlier. An assault committed out of hatred means the sentence would already be higher than it would be otherwise. This new offence would put the consequences of hatred in the hands of the police's subjective process rather than in those of the sentencing judge.

Second, we have a huge American influence. Advocates want tools that would target groups that openly espouse hatred and racism, would make it illegal to conduct any sort of militant training, for example MMA fight clubs, and would address the business component that allows these groups to become incorporated and therefore fundraise.

On the banning of symbols, other than the swastika and SS bolts, symbols would depend on Canada's terror list. Listing groups on the terror list is a highly political decision that is ultimately up to cabinet's discretion. This creates a risk that a future government could put forward a new terror list for political purposes to appease certain groups that could then be caught under this provision.

The wilful promotion of hatred is already an offence in Canada. The use of the swastika can already be processed through crimes currently on the books. The Liberals adding the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of “hatred” to the Criminal Code is not the issue. Courts already use this definition, and nothing would change with this addition. The escalating punishment after each offence for someone convicted of the new hate crime would be excessive and disproportionate.

On the new state of fear threshold, Canada already has a system where we recognize that free speech can go too far and cross a line, like when it incites violence against an identifiable group. This bill would lower that threshold and focuses on elements that are easily politically influenced, like which groups we can and cannot talk about in public. That makes the New Democrats and civil liberties associations nervous.

This crime has the element of intent to provoke a state of fear before going into a specific location. How will these locations be easily identifiable? The definition is too broad. This would cause problems in terms of scope and clarity for peaceful protesters. Provisions are vague, creating the potential for arbitrariness. We should be worried about how police would interpret the bill and about creating a further backlog in the already overburdened criminal justice system.

On freedom of assembly, while freedom of assembly is protected under the charter, with the broad definition of “fear”, any protest that is loud enough or disruptive enough would be seen as meeting this criterion.

In the context of the upcoming November budget, the austerity measures the Prime Minister has told us to expect will impact the justice system, potentially with cuts to public prosecution offices. At the same time, this bill would take away some roles of the Attorney General. The Liberals are making cuts to budgets and at the same time are giving departments more power.

With all the alarm bells going off about this bill, the NDP cannot support it in its current form. We will ensure that amendments are submitted—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for bringing up the issue of white nationalist hatred in Canada.

Hamilton recently had a white supremacist mass-deportation protest that was deeply troubling to our community. Even more troubling is that it mirrors Conservative rhetoric, which is anti-immigrant and anti-migrant propaganda, further mirroring the trends we are seeing in the U.S.'s Trump and MAGA authoritarian regime.

The Conservative leader was personally associated with a white nationalist-adjacent group, Diagolon. What further steps do we need to take in Canada to eliminate white nationalist hatred? Also, what can we do to stop the importation of Trump-style U.S. political movements in Canada?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. member was making some pretty baseless smears about Conservatives in general, and I am wondering if this is in keeping with how the Liberals view free speech and how they want to weaponize the process against people who—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows that I am not going to start that debate in the chamber.

I am going to give the hon. member for Nunavut an opportunity to answer.