THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 20, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 12:01 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).
Senator Paulette Senior (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome, everyone. Good afternoon. I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation.
My name is Paulette Senior, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. I now invite senators to introduce themselves, starting with our deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: Good morning. I am Wanda Thomas Bernard from Mi’kmaq territory, Nova Scotia.
Senator Arnot: Good morning. My name is David Arnot. I am a senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Moodie: Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ince: Good morning and welcome, all. Tony Ince from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today, our committee will be beginning its study on Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).
Before we welcome our witnesses, I would like to provide a content warning for this meeting. The sensitive topics covered today may be triggering for people in the room with us, as well as for those watching and listening to the broadcast. Mental health support for all Canadians is available by phone and text at 9-8-8.
Senators and parliamentary employees are also reminded that the Senate’s Employee and Family Assistance Program is available to them and that a counsellor from the program is available in the room next door for the duration of this meeting and for one hour afterwards.
This afternoon, we will have six panels. In each panel, we will hear from the witnesses, and then the senators around this table will have a question-and-answer session.
I will now introduce our first witnesses, who have been asked to make a five-minute opening statement. With us by video conference is Kenneth Grad, Assistant Professor and Lead Jurist of the Winograd Initiative for the Study of Hate Speech & Antisemitism, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba; and David Haskell, Social Scientist and Associate Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University. I invite Professor Grad to make his presentation, followed by Professor Haskell.
Kenneth Grad, Assistant Professor and Lead Jurist of the Winograd Initiative for the Study of Hate Speech & Antisemitism, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, as an individual: Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the invitation to appear today.
My name is Kenneth Grad. I’m a law professor at the University of Manitoba, located on Treaty 1 territory and the national homeland of the Red River Métis. I also lead the Winograd Initiative for the Study of Contemporary Hate Speech & Antisemitism. I appear before you today in my personal capacity, and the views I express are my own.
My teaching and research focus on criminal law, legal history and hate speech. My scholarship has examined the origins of Canada’s hate propaganda provisions, the prosecution of hate speech and alternative mechanisms for addressing harmful expression.
I wish to acknowledge at the outset something which this committee is well aware of: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hatred are real and growing problems in Canada and around the world. Hate crimes, including hate speech, have risen significantly in recent years. This precipitous increase has had a devastating impact on vulnerable groups. The need to respond is manifest.
My concern is with the tool that Bill C-9 selects to effect this response: the criminal law. My view is that Bill C-9 reflects an overestimation of what the criminal law can realistically accomplish.
Broadly speaking, much of the debate around this bill has fallen into two camps. One camp argues that the bill is an excessive infringement on the freedom of expression of Canadians. The other contends that this bill is a necessary response to combat rising hate.
I part company with both of these positions. Let me explain.
First, Bill C-9 does not represent, in my view, a significant threat to freedom of expression. In fact, the debate surrounding Bill C-9 echoes debates surrounding the original hate speech legislation enacted in 1970. At that time, critics warned that criminalizing hate speech would spell the end of freedom of speech in Canada. That prediction did not materialize.
There is little reason to believe that Bill C-9 will lead to a different result. Indeed, the present bill is not a significant expansion of the criminal law. The new offences of wilful promotion of hatred — terrorism and hate symbols — and intimidation and obstruction related to places of worship add specificity to already existing crimes. And the new hate crime offence front-loads a power already contained in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, which treats hate motivation as an aggravating factor for sentencing.
The proposed removal of the so-called religious defence has perhaps given rise to greatest concerns over an alleged assault on freedom of speech. However, I am currently conducting an empirical analysis of hate speech prosecutions, and my team has not uncovered any cases in which this defence was successfully invoked. The idea that removing this defence will have a significant impact on prosecutions is misguided.
In short, while I empathize with those who seek to protect freedom of expression, I do not see this bill as a material threat to democratic values.
However, this strength of the bill — its minimal impact on freedom of speech — also signals its weakness.
Let us again turn to history. Drafters and proponents of the original hate speech legislation enacted in 1970 did not view the criminalization of hate speech as an effective tool for prosecuting and convicting hate-mongers. Rather, they saw the legislation as predominantly symbolic. This symbolic purpose of the legislation led constitutional scholar F.R. Scott to argue that hate speech laws provide “a false sense of security.” He declared that “we are making a gesture on the criminal law side and then everything else goes on as before.”
The Canadian experience over the last 56 years with criminal hate speech laws suggests Professor Scott was substantially correct. We overestimated both the law’s impact on freedom of expression but also its ability to reduce hatred in practice. Prosecutions have been infrequent, convictions have been difficult to obtain, and hate speech has continued to rise.
In my recent work, I have argued that hate speech prosecutions are particularly ill-suited to advancing traditional objectives of criminal law, such as deterrence and denunciation. Much contemporary hate speech spreads online, anonymously and on an enormous scale. Investigative and prosecutorial resources can only ever reach a tiny fraction of offenders. As a result, certainty of punishment is necessarily very low in this context. Furthermore, by providing hate-mongers greater exposure, the criminal trial turns the denunciatory theory on its head.
Accordingly, the question becomes: If criminal law is not an impactful solution, what should we be focusing on instead?
I have argued that civil remedies, including human rights provisions and group defamation claims, may offer advantages over the criminal law. Digital regulation should be considered. It is notable and, with respect, disappointing that Bill C-9 has focused on criminal law tools to the exclusion of these other measures.
Investment is sorely needed in non-legal tools. In my view, we should place greater emphasis on responses that are more realistically capable of addressing the roots of hatred. A consistent finding in social-scientific literature is that sustained cross-cultural and inter-group contact is among the most effective ways to reduce prejudice and inter-group hostility. Encouraging meaningful dialogue and interaction between communities is likely to do far more to reduce racism over the long term than expanding criminal liability.
And education matters enormously. Recent Senate reports on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism both emphasize the importance of education as a vital tool for combatting hate, but these investments have too often taken a back seat to legal and, particularly, criminal law solutions.
The question before this committee is not whether hate is harmful. The question is whether expanding criminal offences will meaningfully reduce that harm. Based on Canada’s experience with hate speech laws, I remain skeptical that it will.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions on these matters.
The Chair: Thank you, professor.
We will move to Professor Haskell.
David Haskell, Social Scientist and Associate Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University, as an individual: Good afternoon. My name is David Millard Haskell, and I’m a sociologist of religion at Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario.
For over two decades, I have researched and published on conservative Christians in Canada. Conservative Christians can be Protestant or Catholic, but they share the conviction that the Bible is true, that its teachings must be followed and that it must be preached publicly. Based on Scripture, they hold that sexual relations are only acceptable between a married man and a woman, that there are only two genders and one cannot change one’s sex, and that Christianity is true, while other religions are in error.
Their scripture also compels that they show radical compassion even to those unlike themselves. The evidence for that is seen in the fact that Christians in Canada give three times more to charity, volunteer at double the rate and become foster and adoptive parents at two to three times the rate of other citizens. They also have the lowest rates of criminal activity and the highest rates of forgiveness. All this information, by the way, is verified. The source citations are found in my book Christ or Collapse, published by College Press.
Now, it’s as an academic and as a conservative Christian myself that I am asking you to amend Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. Specifically, I implore you not to allow the removal of section 319(3)(b) from the Criminal Code, as this bill is proposing. As written, that Criminal Code provision states that no one can be convicted of an offence if, in good faith, they have expressed or put forward an argument on a religious subject “. . . based on a belief in a religious text . . . .”
If this protection is removed, it will lead to even more discrimination against Christians in Canada and negatively affect the social good they contribute.
Past experience shows that when Liberal governments promised that devout Christians would not be harmed by their new laws, those promises were broken. For example, when the same-sex marriage act was passed in 2005, the Liberal government promised:
. . . no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any . . . sanction . . . solely by reason of their exercise . . . of the freedom of conscience and religion . . . .
But sanctions did come, and benefits were denied.
Many instances could be referenced, but the case of Trinity Western University is well known. This private Christian institution was sanctioned and denied the benefit of establishing a law school specifically because of its Biblical beliefs about marriage.
Here is another example similar to our current situation: In 2017, the Liberal government passed Bill C-16, which added “gender identity or expression” to Canada’s hate speech laws. Like today, it raised significant concerns among Christians, who worried that disagreement about changing genders could lead to punishment. At the time, the government repeatedly promised the bill would not compel anyone to affirm gender ideology or criminalize ordinary disagreement.
Again, that promise was broken.
Examples are numerous — and many are in my book — but most will be familiar with the case of former B.C. school board trustee Barry Neufeld. Just this February, he was fined $750,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for publicly expressing the Christian belief that there are only two genders and sex cannot change.
But today, even when they say nothing, Christians are punished.
Ontario teachers Matt and Nicole Alexander were both fired for silently not flying the gay pride flag in their classrooms.
These examples show that Christians in Canada are already being discriminated against for their religious beliefs. If this Criminal Code protection is removed, it will be “open season” on Christians, as ideological opponents increasingly claim that their beliefs harm society.
In reality, the sociological evidence shows the exact opposite. To the extent that Christians are free to adhere to and publicly express their traditional beliefs, their positive social behaviours are unmatched by others.
Now, yes, a religious text can be used to generate hate against others, but in Canada it is not Christians holding their Bibles perpetrating this offence.
If this bill passes without amendment, like their Saviour, Jesus, Christians in Canada will be punished for the sins of others. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you both, professors, for your testimonies. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senators, just a note that you have five minutes for both the question and the answer. We will begin with our deputy chair, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for being with us today and providing the evidence that you have.
I will ask my first question to Professor Grad. I’d like to pick up on your strong recommendation or suggestion that education may be the best strategy for combatting hate. Given that we have had education in this country for well over 50 years, how do you reconcile the lack of success with education with the suggestions that you’re making at this point with regard to that being a better pathway than criminal liability to deal with hate?
Mr. Grad: Thank you so much for the question, Senator Bernard. I think it’s a wonderful question. It’s a very important one.
I would just start with an acknowledgement of the really wonderful work that you and others on this committee did in the recent reports on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I know several of the senators on this committee participated in one or both of those reports.
With respect to education, really, this was highlighted in both reports — quite strongly in the recent anti-Semitism report — as a primary tool for combatting hatred. But I appreciate your concern. You’re asking a very good question. I take your question to be, “We have had education, and it seems like these things continue to rise.”
There is no silver bullet here with respect to rising hatred and hate speech. It is a multi-faceted problem, and it requires multi‑faceted solutions.
I’m happy to speak more about my difficulties with criminal law, but on the education piece and with respect to your concerns, I think that there is a strong sociological and other empirical foundation for the notion that simply engaging in dialogue and education about vulnerable groups and the impacts of certain speech on vulnerable groups, and also about historical injustices against vulnerable groups, does have a meaningful impact on reducing overall hatred and tension between groups.
This empirical evidence is quite important because, generally speaking, I think empirical evidence in this area as a whole with respect to criminal law and other tools is quite lacking. But here, with education and cross-cultural dialogue, with respect, you do have an area where empirical research has shown that this does have a meaningful impact on reducing hatred.
Of course, this is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but I think it is a better solution both for its empirical foundation and also for the fact that the expense of educational initiatives relative to legal tools, particularly the criminal law, is quite stark — that a lot of educational initiatives can be funded with money that could otherwise be channelled through the criminal justice system.
I will just say one more thing because I know time is of the essence. With respect, again, I don’t take you to be suggesting otherwise, but I am not convinced that we are doing enough when it comes to education. Take things like Holocaust denial. The Parliament recently criminalized Holocaust denial, and residential school denialism has been proposed to be criminalized. I do not think there is enough education devoted to residential schools and the Holocaust and things of that nature.
I’ll leave it there, but thank you very much for the question.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to both witnesses.
This question is for Professor Grad. Professor, I like your idea of looking at civil remedies through the Human Rights Commission process as preferable to the Criminal Code response.
However, one of the things I would like to point out is we do not have a universal human rights code in Canada. In other words, provincial and territorial jurisdictions vary widely. I think Saskatchewan is the only province with a strong human rights record on hate speech. I think Alberta has some in its code, and Manitoba, but the rest really do not. And the federal government took hate speech out of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 2012; it was eventually replaced. Given that weakness, do you have any comment?
Second, if you look at Bill C-9’s requirement of wilful promotion of hatred, do you think that it adequately distinguishes between a criminal sanction of hatred and offensive speech, religious speech, academic speech or political speech? In other words, that section of the code is quite clear, in my opinion. Do you agree?
Mr. Grad: Thank you, Senator Arnot. Again, very wonderful and important questions. Let me take the second question first. I do agree, and I will briefly explain why, but I’m happy to expand.
First of all, the word “wilful” has quite a specific common-law definition. It comes from a case called Buzzanga. This was a criminal case, really the first or one of the first prosecutions under the hate speech legislation, which had been enacted in 1970. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in this case, used quite a narrow definition of “wilful,” which was later adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada, limiting wilful speech to a conscious purpose to promote hatred or a knowledge that promotion of hatred would be certain or substantially certain to result.
So the word “wilful” is actually a very important word in this provision. It’s doing a lot of work in terms of narrowing the scope of the provision, and, as well, arguably protecting its constitutionality.
To your point, picking up on the Keegstra case and what the Supreme Court of Canada said in that case, where they also adopted the definition of “wilful,” but they also — in that case, the majority decision, rendered by Chief Justice Dickson, makes a really important point, which I agree with and which I think you are leading to as well, that it appears difficult if not impossible to envisage a situation where — take the religious defence, for example, which my friend expressed concerns about. It uses the wording “good faith.” And this wording — “good faith” — is repeated in other provisions of the defences to promotion of hatred. It is exceedingly difficult to envision a situation where someone could simultaneously have this wilful intent to promote hatred but simultaneously be acting in good faith; Chief Justice Dickson said this in the decision. So I do agree with you for those reasons.
On the topic of the human rights provisions, this is one of the, again, really important questions. And I appreciate that there had been concerns over the former section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, as you note — and I know you are very experienced with this, given your wonderful work for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission — there are very few provincial provisions that basically protect against the dissemination of hate propaganda, and we no longer have a federal provision, since 2013, given its repeal.
This is something that had been proposed to be reintroduced in the online harms act in a different form, but, ultimately, this is part of my concern — that Bill C-9 has focused on criminal law and not focused on other remedies, including human rights remedies. I’ll leave it there in the interest of time, but I’m happy to elaborate on these points, and thank you for the question.
Senator Arnold: Thank you both for being here with us today. My question is for Professor Grad. I listened to a really interesting podcast you participated in, and at the end of it you talked about what you’ve been talking about here today, but articulated it as certainty versus severity. I’m wondering if you could dig in a bit deeper on what you meant by “certainty.”
Mr. Grad: Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Senator Arnold, for the question. This is a point that I sort of alluded to in my opening remarks.
Just to step back a little bit, essentially, when we think about what the goals of the criminal law are — what the criminal law is trying to do — really, probably the best place to look is in the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, and this is similar to what you would find in, for example, other common-law jurisdictions.
And the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code list a number of objectives of the criminal sanction; one of them is deterrence. This is a very sort of common-sense idea that by criminalizing and ultimately punishing offenders, we will send a signal to essentially others not to engage in this conduct. Not to get into this in too much detail, there is something called “specific deterrence,” which has to do with the specific offender, but let’s take general deterrence for the time being, this notion that by criminalizing you will send a message to others and, thereby, decrease the wrong; you will have fewer people engaging in this behaviour.
The empirical data on this is pretty clear in a number of contexts that the best way to have a deterrence impact through criminal law is through certainty of punishment rather than severity. So by that we mean this idea that if you sort of punish a limited number of people more severely, this is unlikely to have a significant effect on the overall reduction of crime. The best way to reduce crime is to have punishment be certain; if someone engages in a particular conduct, if they think they will be punished, they are far less likely to engage in it.
If you are driving down the road, and there is a speed trap, and you know there is a speed trap, you are probably going to slow down, but if you’re not sure and it’s not on your mind, you’re less likely to do so.
There are a number of difficulties, but one of the difficulties when it comes to hate legislation is it’s exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to sort of punish offenders with regularity. The best we’re going to hope for is to punish a fraction of offenders, and this is just because of the nature of speech. But also a very important point is what has changed since 1970, when the legislation was initially enacted, which is the spread of hate online.
The very notion of online hate speech is such that even if you can identify the person, you are only, in a best-case scenario, going to be able to punish a very small fraction of offenders through the criminal law, because of how widespread this is, the ease of dissemination and the anonymity of the internet. So my view is that you will simply never reach a level of certainty such that you will have a really meaningful deterrence impact through the criminal law.
Senator Moodie: Two questions for Professor Grad. First, in your view, Professor Grad, does Bill C-9 appropriately balance protections from hate propaganda with Charter-protected freedom of expression?
And the second question has to do with the road down which my colleague Senator Arnot started us: What lessons can Canada draw from other democratic jurisdictions that have a similar federalist model in addressing anti-Semitism, hate speech and so on? What lessons can you bring from that international perspective where other similar jurisdictions have addressed this in their legislation?
Mr. Grad: Yes. Thank you so much. Again, very important questions. I’ll take the first question first.
In terms of the constitutionality of the legislation, my view with respect to the views of others is that the bill is carefully calibrated to make it likely that this will continue to be constitutional, for reasons that I’ve mentioned: I don’t see this as a significant expansion of the criminal law. For example, in its current form, the requirement of the Attorney General’s consent has been maintained. The definition of hatred is quite narrow and tracks the common-law definition. I know some changes were made before the House on that matter.
I appreciate my friend’s concerns about the removal of the religious defence — section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. Going back to Keegstra, which is one of the fundamental landmark cases when it comes to upholding the constitutionality of criminal hate speech legislation, essentially the existence of the defences, although Chief Justice Dickson cited this as an important reason that the legislation was not unduly vague, at the same time, he also made this remark, which I’ve alluded to, about it being difficult to envision a situation in which someone could simultaneously wilfully — again, using the definition of “wilful” — promote hatred while simultaneously expressing a good-faith opinion.
For all those reasons, I do think that the bill is well calibrated in terms of its constitutionality. As you already know, my concerns are really otherwise.
The international question is a great question. Different countries have taken different approaches. I’m not saying we should copy these models wholesale, but in countries like Germany and the U.K., the part I would emulate is that there has been a greater focus in those jurisdictions on digital regulation. There are experts on digital regulation whom I think you have heard from in other contexts who are more expert than me — professors like Emily Laidlaw, Michael Geist, my colleague Katie Szilagyi — on that issue. But I would say that, at the least, you should have an emphasis on both civil tools and digital regulation and efforts aimed at digital literacy that were contemplated by the online harms act and have not been picked up through Bill C-9. I understand there may be other online harms acts that the government may pursue.
I’m cautious with this question because there are aspects that the U.K. has already taken a fairly aggressive stance on when it comes to the criminal law, which I am less comfortable with, but in terms of emphasis on online harms, I would encourage greater study of that as an alternative solution.
Senator K. Wells: Dr. Grad, hate crimes have often been called “message crimes” because they don’t just attack individuals but are designed to instill fear and terror into entire communities, particularly vulnerable communities. The research shows these kinds of hate crimes can have profound and long-lasting consequences for both individuals and vulnerable communities. I’m wondering about your thoughts on the importance of the Criminal Code, and in this case Bill C-9, and the embedded principles in terms of denunciation and deterrence as key elements, and not only prosecution.
Mr. Grad: Thank you very much, Senator Wells. It’s, again, a great and important question.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood; I think that it’s important to acknowledge, as I think you are acknowledging, and I don’t mean to be dismissive of the fact that, first of all, this legislation has important symbolic value. I’ve written this about the original criminal hate speech legislation. In fact, many of the proponents of the original legislation, John Turner and others, made this point in the initial debates leading up to the enactment in 1970 — and other initiatives along those lines tend to track that language to a certain extent — that really the primary importance here was symbolism. They had in their mind that we in Canada are taking a different path from the United States. We are showing that criminalization is our way of expressing a desire to communicate to vulnerable groups that the government is taking the harms of hate speech seriously. The criminal law does have a powerful and important expressive function.
In that vein, as you note, it’s important to acknowledge the harms of hate speech. This can be lost in this debate between freedom of expression and the desire to suppress or combat hate speech. No matter your view on this issue, it’s important to acknowledge the harm of hate speech, and sometimes — and you see this perhaps more in American scholarship — this is dismissed as, “Just ignore it. It’s not a big deal. Move on.”
I don’t think this fairly captures the impact of this speech on vulnerable groups. It can have a devastating impact on vulnerable groups. Jeremy Waldron, a law professor at NYU, has written eloquently about this impact.
My concern is otherwise. While symbolism is important, I’m concerned with the downside of the symbolism, which is that if the provisions do not appear to have a meaningful impact on hate speech, vulnerable groups will take a different message — that the government or police do not care enough to enforce these tools.
I’ll stop there, but I’m happy to elaborate. Thank you very much for the question.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you. I will pick up on that a little bit. Of course, we’re talking about more than hate speech in Bill C-9, and one of perhaps the more consequential changes in legislation is the introduction of a new stand-alone hate crimes charge. I’m wondering about your thoughts there on not only having this new charge, but it also helping to standardize the definition of hate for police jurisdictions all across the country that hasn’t existed in the past. Along with the charge, we would probably see the improvement of standardized reporting and data collection, which might give us a better understanding of how hate is impacting vulnerable communities across the country.
Have you looked into those other changes that are actually new and don’t exist elsewhere in the Criminal Code?
The Chair: I’m sorry. The time is short, so we’ll go to the second round on that one.
Senator Ince: Thank you all. Professor Haskell, I understand your concerns. It is my understanding that the Charter would address some of your concerns. Can you explain and expand more on some of your concerns?
Mr. Haskell: Sure. The Charter does nothing. The Charter has section 15(2), which says that people who are Christians, because they were part of the majority population, any discrimination against them is legal as long as it is to ameliorate past harms. Similarly, we’ve seen again and again that Charter protections for Christians don’t exist.
In every case that has come before the Supreme Court, or even in lower courts, where Christian rights were put against the rights of the LGBT community, for example, the Christians lose. So we could look at the Christian Horizons case. It is a Christian organization that looks after developmentally handicapped kids and adults. We can look at the Trinity Western University case.
But my point is that, in the Charter, section 1 says that the government can decide what rights you get to keep; section 2 is where the rights are. Section 1 says the government gets to decide who gets to keep them and when, both through their policies and through the courts. And Christians are always on the losing end.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: I’d like to ask this question to both our witnesses. Picking up on the statement by Professor Grad about the harm of hate crimes, especially on “vulnerable groups,” of course, the harm caused by hate crimes has an impact. We know that many of the systemic inequalities that those “vulnerable groups” face are rooted in hate. One of the places where young people, especially young people who are part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, experience harm based on hate is in the Christian faith and in other faiths.
Would you speak to those realities and the capacity for this bill to strengthen the abilities of members of those communities to address harms caused by hate? That is for either witness.
Mr. Haskell: I’m happy to jump in on that. We know this from a previous study, and I’ll give a bit of background. Trinity Western University was denied its law school because of its Christian beliefs. It had also earlier applied for a teachers’ college. The teachers’ college was also put under pressure so that it couldn’t move forward. The B.C. College of Teachers was trying to prevent the teachers’ college from being granted a licence. It went all the way to the Supreme Court. The evidence turned in by Trinity Western University showed no evidence that the conservative Christians who would be attending the school would be prejudiced or impartial toward anyone else, which, by the way, is in keeping with Christian values generally, especially conservative Christian values. The notion that we would see greater harm because traditional Christians were able to speak their beliefs is just not justified by the evidence that we see in the Supreme Court case of the teachers’ college coming out of Trinity Western University.
Moreover, we can look at the nearly 7,000 hate crimes that happened in 2025. If you look at that data, whether in news reports or police reports, Christians were not perpetrating those crimes. It seems to me that Christians are being punished in order to protect some kind of perverse idea about political correctness, and we’re not addressing the elephant in the room.
Mr. Grad: Thank you so much for the question. To be brief, these are, of course, important points. I likely part company, with respect, with my friend here and also with some others in terms of what I think will be the impact of this on the ability of religious leaders to express opinions. With that being said, these things are very difficult to measure.
The other point to which I’ve sort of made reference already is simply the fact that the harms of this type of speech do have to be taken very seriously. I focused my testimony on speech provisions, but there are also provisions in this bill surrounding intimidation and obstruction of, for example, religious institutions.
I absolutely empathize with the concerns of striking the appropriate balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression, but for reasons I’ve already said, I think the balance in this bill is struck accordingly. I am more concerned over its impacts.
The Chair: Thank you. Because of the growing list and decreasing time, I now ask that your question and answer be limited to three minutes.
Senator Arnot: Professor Grad, I just would like to make a comment about the Whatcott case in the Supreme Court of Canada. It was a unanimous decision. It spoke about the harms on vulnerable groups and, more importantly, the purpose for using hate speech as a weapon. I think it’s a foundational thesis of that particular judgment. Do you agree with that?
Second — and this is the most important question — is a special religious defence legally necessary, in your opinion? Or is lawful religious expression already protected in the code in the high threshold of the offence and the Charter?
Mr. Grad: Thank you, Senator Arnot. Again, those are very important questions. I’ll take the second one first, and I will be brief here.
For reasons I’ve mentioned previously — and again, with due respect for those who have a contrary view — my view is the removal of the religious defence, for better or worse, will not have the effect that people on either side have predicted.
With respect to the Whatcott case, I know you are quite familiar with it from your prior work. Yes, the Whatcott decision says many important things. It came out in 2013 and really showed the courts some evolution because prior cases in the 1990s, including John Ross Taylor and Keegstra, showed that the court was very divided. Then you have the unanimous decision of the court in Whatcott, which really spoke to the harms of hate speech.
I do agree that it is a well-crafted judgment. I agree with what it says with respect to the harms of hate speech. I also think this judgment speaks, although perhaps in a more indirect way, to the potential value of civil remedies, including human rights legislation, which, as you noted, exists only at the provincial level in a few jurisdictions — Saskatchewan, B.C., Alberta and the Northwest Territories. It no longer exists at the federal level.
You’ve seen with Mr. Whatcott himself that, subsequent to his Supreme Court case, where he was found liable under human rights provisions, he moved to take up residence, I believe, in Ontario. At least he moved out of Saskatchewan. He was subsequently found to be doing the same conduct, but there is no analogous human rights provision in Ontario, so he was prosecuted for wilful promotion of hatred and was acquitted. That acquittal was later overturned, but, in any event, it speaks to the difficulty of the criminal law versus things like human rights provisions. Thank you for the question.
Senator K. Wells: I want to go back to Dr. Grad to pick up where our conversation left off in the first round. Did you have further thoughts on the addition of the specific hate crime charge and standardizing the definition of hate crimes for law enforcement across the country?
Mr. Grad: Thank you, Senator Wells. I will defer to the police services. They are the ones enforcing these provisions on a day-to-day basis. In fact, maybe I’ll connect this briefly in a moment. We are speaking to some police services in our own work, and I will defer to them.
Something I’m very concerned about is the empirical data on how hate speech provisions are being used, both at the policing level and at the prosecutorial level. Through the University of Manitoba Faculty of Law, we are conducting another project that is working with police and prosecution services to get more data in terms of categorizing and tracking how these provisions are being used, which I think is very important for policy matters.
So, if the police services have expressed the view that will be helpful in that sense, I have no disagreement there. If they do feel that it would be helpful in terms of clarification, I defer to those services. But my point, I think, is a different one — that both the hate speech definition and the new hate crime offence are things that already exist in somewhat different forms. The definition comes from the common law and now attracts the common law. This was a change that was previously made. Now it tracks the common law quite closely. So this definition already was in place.
In terms of the stand-alone hate offence, I see one of its primary purposes as really moving up an exercise that typically is now done at the sentencing stage, where they determine whether this was motivated by hate and bias and so on. Sometimes this requires a factual hearing called a Gardiner hearing. I see the idea here being to move this inquiry up, but in substance it is a similar inquiry to one that’s already being made at sentencing.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Ince: Professor Grad, civil liberties organizations warn that intimidation provisions could capture peaceful protest. Based on your research, how real is that risk? How could the law better be scoped to avoid it?
Mr. Grad: Thank you, Senator Ince. This is a very good question, and I appreciate you raising it.
With respect to civil liberties groups, I appreciate the concern. These things are very difficult to measure. While I would like to say, through my research, this is not a concern or is a concern, one way or the other, but in fact it’s kind of difficult to say with precision. This is part of the reason why I encourage greater empirical data, but some of these things are just hard to measure. It’s hard to know whether someone has refrained from conduct that they otherwise would have conducted had the legal tool not existed, so sort of proving a negative, right? How do I know someone would have done it if not for this provision? It’s very hard to measure.
I can’t say with certainty that these groups are wrong or that they’re right, but, as I’ve said previously, these tools around intimidation — intimidation is already a criminal offence. Some of this behaviour that I think has upset different vulnerable groups, arguably, is also in the realm of assaultive conduct, and now you have moved from speech over to action. When it comes to that, this is already criminalized.
So I cannot say for certain that this will not have a chilling effect, but I am perhaps a bit more skeptical than civil liberties organizations in terms of how much impact this will have on the ground, particularly when, broadly speaking, I think we tend to overestimate the deterrent impact of these provisions, but also because a lot of these tools already exist in somewhat similar form. Thank you for the question.
Senator Ince: Thank you so much.
The Chair: Professor Grad, can I follow up on something you said in response? You mentioned the need for greater empirical data as something that would be important to have. Is there some way that you would recommend we go about that, as it relates specifically to this bill? Would that be somewhat related to education as well?
Mr. Grad: This is a really good question. I’m wondering if I can be helpful in terms of specific policy responses. I do think it is related to education, certainly, although in terms of the education that I had referred to earlier, I was really thinking more about education about historical and ongoing harms, like residential school denialism, Holocaust denial and these types of educational initiatives.
On the empirical data side, I’m thinking more about aggregation. This is something I am trying to do. As I said, at the University of Manitoba, we have some funding through The Asper Foundation in Manitoba to help aggregate data from policing and prosecutorial services, for example, with prosecution services, unreported decisions and things of that nature, which I think would help, at least in terms of tracking how these provisions are being used on the ground.
I’ve seen some publicly available data which suggests that the conviction rate for these offences is significantly lower than other offences. Is that true? Why is that true? What is happening with these charges? I think this will help all of us in terms of policy responses.
In terms of specific measures that this committee or that the Senate can do, any assistance that you can provide in terms of greater study and aggregation of policing and prosecutorial data would help build on the really important work that this committee has done, for example, through reports on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. I’ll leave it there.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnold: I wanted to expand on that data, so thank you for that. My question then is to Professor Grad. You talked about the fact that you feel that this has struck a balance, even though you’ve made it clear what you think about it all. I’m curious: If this were to go forward, do you like a more prescriptive approach? You mentioned residential school denialism, for example. Other people have talked about being more prescriptive as far as the symbol of a noose. I’m just curious if you could speak to that.
Mr. Grad: Yes, I would be happy to, but may I ask for a small point of clarification? Do you mean more prescriptive in this legislation or as a more general matter?
Senator Arnold: In this legislation. Should those things be included in it?
Mr. Grad: That’s a really good question. I’m not sure that this legislation should or can be more prescriptive. I will defer to all of you over me in terms of whether it is possible to be prescriptive about some of the things I’ve talked about in terms of educational initiatives and things like that. I do not see this bill as geared toward civil remedies.
I do think greater precision can help in terms of interpretation of any legislative enactments, but there are sometimes risks that come with adding additional language as well. I don’t know if that answer is helpful, but I think I’ll leave it there, subject to any follow-up questions.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, senators, and thank you so much to our witnesses. I would like to sincerely thank you both for agreeing to participate in this meeting. Your assistance with our study and reviewing this bill is greatly appreciated.
Our witnesses on the second panel have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each. This will be followed by questions from the senators.
With us by video conference, from the Canadian Bar Association, is Kyla Lee from the CBA Criminal Justice Section. Welcome. Also joining us by video conference, please welcome, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program. And our only in-person witness for this panel, from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, is Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator. Welcome.
I will now invite Ms. Lee to make her presentation, followed by Ms. Bussières McNicoll and Mr. McSorley. Over to you.
Kyla Lee, CBA Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association: Thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Kyla Lee, and I am appearing on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section, where I currently serve as an Honourary Member-at-Large.
The Criminal Justice Section is composed of both Crown and defence counsel from across Canada. Our role is not to take political positions for or against particular groups. Our role is to assist Parliament and the Senate in ensuring that criminal legislation is clear, constitutional, workable and consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.
The Canadian Bar Association recognizes the very real harms caused by hate crimes and hateful conduct. Members of historically marginalized communities continue to experience intimidation, threats, violence and fear in their daily lives. Those harms are real. The law has an important role in responding to them.
The concerns raised in our submission are not directed at the objective of the legislation. They are directed at the drafting of certain provisions and the unintended consequences that may arise from them.
Our submission focuses on three principal areas. First, regarding the proposed hate crime offence, the bill creates a new offence where an existing Criminal Code or federal offence is committed and is motivated by hatred based on specified characteristics. The Criminal Justice Section is concerned that the proposed definition of “hatred” and the accompanying clarification provisions may create interpretive uncertainty.
The legislation defines “hatred” as “. . . an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation . . .,” and it also states that conduct is not motivated by hatred “ . . . solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
The concern is not with Parliament attempting to distinguish true hate propaganda from merely offensive expression. The concern is that the wording may create uncertainty about where the criminal threshold actually lies.
Hate crimes frequently involve humiliation, degradation and offence to victims. The line between offensive conduct and criminal hatred is therefore extremely important and must be articulated with precision. Criminal offences should be drafted in a manner that allows citizens, police, prosecutors, defence counsel and judges to understand, with reasonable certainty, what conduct is prohibited.
Second, with respect to the proposed offences relating to intimidation and obstruction at religious and cultural places, the objective behind these provisions is understandable and important. People should be able to attend places of worship, schools, community centres and cultural facilities safely and without fear.
The concern raised by the Criminal Justice Section is whether the scope of the offence is sufficiently precise where Charter-protected activity may also occur, specifically focusing on freedom of expression and the protest rights that individuals have.
The bill criminalizes intentionally obstructing or interfering with lawful access to these locations. It also criminalizes conduct intended to provoke fear in order to impede access. Many of these locations also happen to be sites of lawful, protected protest activity and expressive activity that is covered under section 2 of the Charter.
The Criminal Justice Section is concerned that terms such as “obstructs” and “interferes” remain very broad concepts in the criminal context, and precision becomes particularly important where individuals may engage in protest, picketing, demonstrations or other expressive conduct near these facilities.
The legislation includes an exemption for persons attending near such places for the purpose of obtaining or communicating information. In our respectful submission, questions may still arise regarding the boundary between protected expressive activity and criminal obstruction. Criminal prohibitions engaging Charter-protected conduct should be drafted as clearly and narrowly as possible.
Third, with respect to the proposed hate symbols offence, the bill creates a new offence for wilfully promoting hatred through the public display of specified symbols, including symbols associated with listed terrorist entities and certain Nazi symbols.
The Criminal Justice Section recognizes the legitimate concern underlying this provision. Hate symbols can be used to intimidate vulnerable communities and promote violence and exclusion. At the same time, the provision also engages freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.
The bill includes defences for legitimate purposes, such as journalism, education and art. The Criminal Justice Section nevertheless remains concerned about ensuring that the offence is applied in a sufficiently precise and narrowly tailored manner consistent with Charter principles.
Criminal law is among the most coercive powers exercised by the state. Where legislation engages expressive activity, clarity and precision are essential to ensuring constitutionality and constitutionally durable legislation.
In closing, the Criminal Justice Section supports the efforts to address hate-motivated violence, intimidation and discrimination in Canadian society. Our submission is offered in the spirit of improving the legislation so that it is constitutionally sound, carefully targeted and workable in practice.
Thank you, and I look forward to any questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
We’ll now go to Ms. Bussières McNicoll.
Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, Director, Fundamental Freedoms Program, Canadian Civil Liberties Association: Madam Chair and honourable committee members, good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to share with you the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s perspective on Bill C-9.
My name is Anaïs Bussières McNicoll. I am the Director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, or CCLA. We are an independent, non-governmental, non-partisan national organization founded in 1964 with a mandate to defend and promote the civil liberties, human rights and democratic freedoms of all people across Canada.
The CCLA is deeply committed to combatting hatred and building a more inclusive society. We acknowledge that while freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are vital to a democracy, they are not absolute and must sometimes be balanced with other rights and interests.
However, criminal law is a blunt instrument that must be used carefully and only when necessary. Equity-deserving groups have repeatedly been the first to feel the weight of overly broad and punitive laws adopted in the name of protecting vulnerable communities.
Instead of addressing the structural roots of racism and hatred, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, Bill C-9 perpetuates a punitive model that risks disproportionately criminalizing, yet again, the very communities it claims to protect.
Today, the CCLA is urging this committee to vote against Bill C-9 for five key reasons.
Subsidiarily, we have provided committee members with a list of targeted amendments which could partially mitigate Bill C-9’s harmful impacts. We would be happy to discuss this list during the question-and-answer session.
The first reason to vote against Bill C-9 relates to the new intimidation offence. It requires an “. . . intent to provoke a state of fear in a person . . .” in order to impede their access to any of the institutions listed in the provision. This threshold is impermissibly vague and subjective and risks being used to chill dissent.
For context, the Criminal Code already criminalizes participating in a riot, assaulting, physically blocking access to property, vandalizing property, uttering threats, inciting violence against an identifiable group, forcing people to abstain from doing anything to which they have a lawful right and harassing people.
This raises the question of what additional conduct the new criminal prohibition would capture. Would it be triggered when a protest is particularly loud; when hundreds of people are gathered in a public space, disrupting daily lives; when some protestors utter slogans which, while unpleasant or offensive, do not meet the Supreme Court of Canada’s definition of hate propaganda? These disruptive elements could be seen by some, including the police, as evidence of an intent to instill fear in others. Yet, these elements are constitutionally protected forms of expression and peaceful assembly that should not be criminalized in a democracy.
The fact that a protest creates an uncomfortable experience for some does not cause it to lose its peaceful nature, let alone its constitutional protection. On the contrary, the purpose of most peaceful assemblies is precisely to create political, social or economic tension in order to draw public attention to a message.
For these reasons, the new intimidation provision should be removed from Bill C-9.
Second, the new obstruction provision clearly duplicates existing provisions of the Criminal Code and should therefore not be adopted.
Third, we share the concerns that the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group will be raising today with respect to the new terror symbols provision. A key concern of ours is the discrepancy between the justice minister’s stated intention regarding this provision and the possibility that it could be interpreted as a general prohibition against the public display of specific symbols.
Fourth, the new hate crime offence requires police officers, from the outset of the legal process and without a requirement to obtain the Attorney General’s consent, to determine whether an accused person was allegedly motivated by hatred when allegedly committing a crime.
In many cases, this change risks paving the way for inconsistent or arbitrary charges. A hate crime charge is not trivial or inconsequential. Since it drastically increases the maximum sentence associated with the included offence, a baseless hate crime charge could lead innocent defendants to accept a guilty plea.
Lastly, the House committee’s removal of the good-faith religious exemption from the Criminal Code endangers the constitutional balance of the wilful promotion of hatred offence. The new clarification provisions added by the House committee are not a satisfactory replacement, as they adopt circular reasoning that makes them useless.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bussières McNicoll. We will now go to Mr. McSorley.
Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group: Thank you very much, chair, and thank you for the chance to appear today.
I am here on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, or ICLMG, a coalition of 45 Canadian organizations. ICLMG was founded in 2002 to serve as a watchdog on the impacts of Canada’s national security and anti‑terrorism laws on civil liberties.
Our coalition has observed with distress the increase in hate-based violence across Canada over the past several years. We believe greater measures must be taken to address it, but such measures must be targeted and specific and must not unduly impact civil liberties or Charter rights, including those of the very communities they are meant to protect.
Unfortunately, several measures in Bill C-9 fail that test. We share the concerns of 37 signatories of an open letter, led by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, that identified substantial problems in the bill and called for it to be withdrawn.
Today, I would like to focus on one particular area: the provisions in clause 4 that would create a new offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols in public. These provisions pose a significant threat to freedom of expression by granting broad and discretionary powers to police and by basing the determination of which symbols are included on a flawed terrorist listing process. We also believe that the new provisions covered are redundant.
The new offence states, in part:
Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place,
(a) a symbol that is principally used by, or . . . associated with, a listed [terrorist] entity . . .
(b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz or . . . SS bolts; or
(c) a symbol that so nearly resembles —
— one of those that it is likely to be mistaken for one.
The government has stated that the simple display of an impugned symbol would not violate the law without additional evidence of intent. However, this is not clear from the drafting. Instead, the plain reading would be that the simple public display would be considered wilful promotion of hatred — going further than the existing anti-terrorism law, which does not treat the mere display of a symbol associated with a terrorist entity as an offence, precisely because doing so would violate the Charter.
If the government’s intent is that the offence requires display in the context of wilfully promoting hatred, the bill must be amended, at minimum, by changing “by” to “while.” But even with such a change, we do not believe this offence should be adopted.
The wilful promotion of hatred is already a Criminal Code offence under section 319(2), and the government has confirmed this includes the use of symbols as part of a pattern of evidence. It is difficult to see why a new offence is necessary. Focusing on symbols used rather than intent risks chilling free expression.
This brings me to our third concern: vagueness. The wording asks police officers to make discretionary on-the-spot determinations of what constitutes a symbol “associated with” or “used by” any of the 90 listed terrorist entities, which we understand could include both words and slogans.
A clear example is the ongoing dispute over whether symbols associated with Palestinian human rights protests are hateful or terrorist-linked. Already, there are calls for police to make more arrests at protests on the grounds that symbols in support of Palestinian self-determination are associated with terrorist entities. Under this legislation, police would be further called upon to determine, mid-protest, not only whether a symbol is associated with a listed entity but whether it is being used to wilfully promote hatred and whether it sufficiently “resembles” a prohibited symbol.
Would Arabic writing or certain colours on a sign be enough to arrest someone if an officer believes it closely resembles imagery associated with a listed entity? This would apply across all listed entities and could affect protests from a broad range of communities, raising serious concerns about guilt by association and the stigmatization of entire movements. These problems could also be compounded as the terrorist entities list continues to be expanded under future governments, including, for example, through growing calls to list anti-fascist organizations as terrorist entities.
Given the severe potential for overreach and the stigma attached to a hate crime accusation, we believe this provision will create an unacceptable chill on free expression and dissent.
Finally, basing criminal offences on the terrorist entities list is itself unacceptable. Listings rely on secret evidence and unaccountable executive decisions with inadequate avenues for challenge or redress and can be political in nature. New criminal offences should never be built on such a foundation.
This is one of many concerns with Bill C-9, including — as my colleagues expressed earlier — the proposed intimidation and obstruction offences and the removal of the good-faith religious defence. We believe the bill should be withdrawn and the government’s approach revisited. We urge you and your Senate colleagues to address these concerns. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you all for your presentations. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senators, you have five minutes for your questions and answers. We will now begin with Senator Bernard, deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for your testimony today. All three of you have referenced symbols and hate symbols. I would like to start by asking a question around that. This bill lists specific symbols, but it is not an exhaustive list. We have heard concerns about this bill from many Canadians, but from Black Canadians in particular we’ve heard about the fact that anti-Black racism hate symbols have not been included.
So I would like to hear your thoughts regarding the advantages and disadvantages of naming specific symbols. Should there be specific symbols named? Then, when you name specific symbols and you leave some symbols out, what’s the result and harm with regard to that, and what recommendation would you make to this committee with regard to the symbols and the naming of symbols in the bill?
Maybe we’ll start with Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee: Thank you. The CBA has sort of two responses to that question. The first is in relation to the regulation-making ability. Leaving that essentially to regulation — as some of my colleagues have expressed — is concerning because it basically allows the government of the day to decide what a hate symbol is. It doesn’t make it something that can be properly debated and decided through study and through the sober second thought that the Senate does offer in relation to that.
Obviously, there are omissions of symbols that are very concerning to many groups and especially around anti-Black racism. Having that as something that is fully and properly considered before a symbol is listed is appropriate, not only to ensure that the concerns of the groups who are having their interests protected by that are taken into account, but also to ensure that there are ample opportunities for people to respond.
Our suggestion on amendments to the legislation would be to curtail the language on the display of symbols to specifically curtail it to “for the purposes of promoting hatred” so that the legislation only captures the display of such symbols in circumstances intended to promote hatred against identifiable groups. That ensures the new offence isn’t overly broad in what it captures, which might address some of the issues raised in your question about not having certain ones listed. You could list more if the intention was curtailed to specifically being for the purposes of promoting hatred, and I think that would open the door and make it easier to list more in the legislation.
Ms. Bussières McNicoll: Thank you for the question. We agree the list of symbols, as currently drafted, causes and creates some confusion, and this ties in nicely with our position that the provision, from our perspective, should be removed, partly because it is duplicative, and the other part is that it’s overly broad.
When it comes to the duplicative nature, displaying a hateful symbol in public can already be part of a broader pattern of behaviour that can lead to a criminal conviction. For example, an individual was convicted of mischief for drawing symbols associated with the KKK and the Nazi regime in front of a Black family’s house. An individual was convicted of public incitement of hatred for burning a cross in front of a biracial couple’s house.
The Criminal Code, as it currently stands, already provides protection for marginalized communities, and communities as a whole, when hateful symbols are used in such a way. However, when we look at the new provision and the way it has been drafted, we clearly see a discrepancy between the justice minister’s declared intent behind the provision and how it has been drafted.
The justice minister said the new provision is not a blanket ban on the public display of terror and hate symbols, but when we look at the current wording of the provision, we believe it could reasonably be read as providing that publicly displaying the prohibited symbols necessarily constitutes wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group.
If committee members are not prepared to remove this provision entirely, one recommendation we have made, recommendation 3(a) in our submission, is to replace “by” with “while,” which would clarify that the mere public display of a prohibited symbol is not, in and of itself, evidence of wilful promotion of hatred. Thank you.
Senator Ince: My question is for Ms. Lee. You noted that the definition of hatred may be confusing, despite being drawn from case law. What specific amendments would improve clarity for courts and prosecutors?
Ms. Lee: The Canadian Bar Association feels that the definition, and specifically the clarification clause, is, to some extent, taking the source case law out of context because of the fact that hate crimes, by their very nature, do discredit, humiliate and offend.
I think an amendment that would go beyond just stating that hatred discredits, humiliates and offends alone being insufficient to meet the definition of hatred causes more confusion rather than clarifies the definition. So, I think an amendment would be necessary to better articulate what the Parliament’s intention is in defining hate and to tie it more clearly to the actual definition of hatred that has evolved from the case law, and not simply saying, “It isn’t just this.” That doesn’t clarify what it actually is.
So we recommend being more specific in that definition and drawing it directly from the case law rather than taking the commentary in the case law out of context.
I think in our submission we quoted from Whatcott, where the Supreme Court of Canada said:
. . . “detestation” and “vilification” aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.
That is where this is drawn from. However, it actually doesn’t help to clarify what hate is. It really just tells you that it’s not just something else. So I think more specificity would be necessary.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Ms. Lee, I’m just wondering — and please forgive me if I haven’t understood that you have already addressed this in any of your answers — but are there procedural or evidentiary challenges that the courts may face if this legislation is enacted — specific ones that you can think of?
Ms. Lee: Yes, especially in relation to the intimidation and obstruction. If you look at the case law and the criminal context around what has constituted obstruction — for example, looking at the offence of obstruction of a police officer — that can capture a very broad range of conduct, and that butts up against the protected protest and expression rights that individuals have.
In theory, obstruction could simply be blocking somebody’s path to get into a place of worship. Protesters will often be around these places; they may intentionally or otherwise block somebody’s path to access the place. So that’s open to interpretation as obstruction within the definition, which is far too broad when it bumps up against these protected rights.
I think that’s one of the areas where there is going to be a real interpretive problem as to what constitutes obstruction in this context and whether it needs to be read very differently than obstruction in other contexts where that term is used in the Criminal Code, in particular where it pertains to expressive rights. Because, of course, those don’t typically come up in the context of obstruction as it’s used in obstructing police in the execution of their duties.
It’s not really clear at what point a person’s actions or words constitute obstruction or interference on the face of the amendments. That is going to lead to a whole lot of interpretive judicial ink spilled on this at the cost of time of our criminal justice system and criminal defendants who may well not have committed an offence under this bill.
The Chair: I have a follow-up on that, Ms. Lee. Of course, I invite other witnesses to jump in as well. I’m thinking about somewhat similar legislation with respect to reproductive health centres such as abortion clinics and particular legislation in terms of folks not blocking the entrance to these facilities and so forth. I understand it was in that spirit that this particular part of the legislation for Bill C-9 was introduced. Could you do some kind of comparison there and let us know your thoughts?
For the civil liberties witnesses, I guess both national and international, was that legislation something you opposed on similar grounds as you would this one?
We’ll start with you, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee: Thank you. The CBA doesn’t have a specific position on a comparative analysis, so I’m limited in my capacity as to how much I can get into this issue. To the extent that the legislation has existed — I’m going to go slightly outside of what I’m permitted to do in my capacity here — I do think that it’s more clear, if I recall correctly, in those provisions what specifically is being prohibited. They were drafted in a way that more clearly recognizes the tension between the protest rights and the free expression rights, whereas, with these provisions, it’s just overly broad the way that it’s drafted, so that tension isn’t as clearly addressed, in the CBA’s view, as it would be in other circumstances in the Criminal Code where there seems to be legislation that seems to be mostly effectively working and not prohibiting people from engaging in their protected activities.
The Chair: Thank you. If there is a more comprehensive perspective from the CBA on that, we would love to get something in writing.
Ms. Lee: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Bussières McNicoll, would you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Bussières McNicoll: Sure. Thank you for this thoughtful question.
One thing that I would say is that you’re referring to what we generally call “bubble zone” legislation. The debate about the constitutionality of that type of legislation is pretty much alive in Canada right now. Yes, we have some decisions from courts within the context of abortion clinics and none from the Supreme Court of Canada. Whenever we’re talking about Charter rights and infringement and justification, the analysis is always going to be on a case-by-case basis, based on the evidentiary record and also on how the legislation has been drafted.
When it comes to non-criminal prohibitions, yes, some of them exist. Some of them are being challenged right now before the courts, and we certainly don’t have a definitive answer with respect to their constitutionality.
One interesting thing is that there is already in the Criminal Code the prohibition regarding intimidation related to health services. To the best of our knowledge, the constitutionality of this provision has not been tested in court, and obviously violent behaviour and threats of violence are likely to cause fear because the provision uses the same threshold as intent to cause fear. But such conduct is already prohibited under other provisions of the Criminal Code.
In 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in the context of and enforcement of section 423(1) of the Criminal Code, noted that the notion of the state of fear and the outer limits of this notion remained to be clarified. So courts have already acknowledged that there is a lot of uncertainty with this threshold, which is one of the reasons why we’re advocating against Parliament enacting yet another prohibition that relies on this vague and, from our perspective, overly broad and subjective threshold, which risks stifling protected dissent and expression. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. McSorley, would you have anything to add?
Mr. McSorley: I agree with what my colleagues have said, but I would add the scope of what’s being proposed under the intimidation and obstruction offences is broader than what we see in either — well, some of the bubble zone bylaws right now are just as broad. For example, there is a lack of clarity around the breadth of the institutions that would be covered and the situations that it could entail.
For example, university campuses often have multiple areas devoted to student organizations that are associated with identifiable groups. There is no clarity in the law about if there was an event or protest that was blocking access to campus in general, whether or not that obstruction would also be considered falling under these new provisions and would constitute and, therefore, be charged as a hate crime.
So in terms of the breadth of what’s being proposed, even though we believe strongly that there needs to be more done to protect the security of places of worship and places used by identifiable groups, there is a lack of specificity and a lack of clarity around how this has been drafted, and the consequences of that could be broader criminalization of individuals who are not engaging in hateful acts but would still be violating the offence.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Arnold: My question is for Ms. Bussières McNicoll. I was wondering if perhaps you could expand on the CCLA’s recommendations. You mentioned in your opening statement that you would like the opportunity to do that.
Ms. Bussières McNicoll: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
When it comes to the intimidation offence, obviously all of this is subject to our primary position, which is that it should be removed, but we believe that, at the very least — there is already within Bill C-9 a defence for communicating information that only applies to the obstruction provision. We believe that this defence should also apply to the intimidation provision, and that would be a clarification of the required mens rea so that there won’t be an intent to provoke a state of fear if the purpose of the conduct is only obtaining or communicating information, obviously in a non-oppressing and non-violent way.
As senators may know, this defence already exists under the current mischief offence, and courts have confirmed that it should be interpreted with an eye on freedom of expression. Courts have recognized it must be interpreted in a way that’s consistent with freedom of expression, meaning that the defence generally protects communications that are peaceful and non-violent. If committee members are to keep the new intimidation offence, at the very least, this defence should be added to its application and interpretation.
Another recommendation when it comes to the intimidation offence, as a way to mitigate the risk that it will be used arbitrarily or inconsistently by law enforcement, is to require the Attorney General’s consent before charges are brought under this new provision because the context in which the provision is being enacted is clear. It is in the context of a rise of disruptive protests in Canada. This is presented as Parliament’s response to the situation and sends a clear signal to law enforcement that this provision could be used in these circumstances. From our perspective, it would be wise to add the institutional check, that is, AG consent, which is designed to promote a legally informed and proportionate public interest assessment before criminal prosecutions proceed in areas that are particularly subjective and sensitive and where constitutional rights are directly implicated.
As an example, the Black Legal Action Centre has stated that racialized communities who have, as we know, a long history of using public demonstrations to demand justice face this stereotype of being aggressive or intimidating. Racialized groups could face a heightened legal risk if their legitimate protests are wrongly or disproportionally construed as intimidation, so adding the AG consent requirement would lower the risk of arbitrary, inconsistent or biased enforcement by the police. Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: A distinction needs to be made clear here, too. We’ve talked a lot about bubble zones, but this legislation isn’t bubble zones in the Criminal Code that are being produced. Of course, those are bylaws at municipal levels, and certainly, in two cases I’m aware of, the courts have upheld the constitutionality of those bubble zones. What gets missed here is the protection and the Charter rights of vulnerable communities to be able to access public spaces without fear of intimidation or obstruction.
In some ways, this legislation is being introduced to protect minority groups to safely access the same public services and facilities everyone else has, and we’ve seen cases in the media where that has been a problem. We can talk about Drag Queen Storytime or all kinds of different public protests. There are always two different perspectives, and we’re talking about potentially competing Charter rights here as well.
I do have some specific questions. Mr. McSorley, since you are an international organization, if you have looked at Bill C-9 as it currently sits, can you give us a sense of how that hate crime legislation compares to legislation in other countries that has already been enacted?
Mr. McSorley: Thank you for the question. I focus on the terrorist offence because our primary scope is around national security and anti-terrorism laws. What I can add in terms of the international perspective is looking at what we’re seeing right now in both the U.K. and the United States in terms of how the linking of criminal offences to the listing of organizations as terrorist entities under the guise of also combatting hatred has been expanded recently and has led to the result of more people being arrested — mass arrests, for example in the U.K., of individuals simply speaking out and holding signs in support of a group called Palestine Action under the guise that simply displaying an image is considered a terrorist offence.
While the Canadian law isn’t as broad as what has been enacted in the U.K., we’re concerned that the impacts will be very similar, especially given the lack of clarity around the government’s intent and the wording of the law.
Just to clarify, our name is the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. That was our original name. Over time, we’ve narrowed our focus specifically to looking at Canada and Canada’s role internationally in terms of anti-terrorism and national security laws, but I don’t have that comparative around the international situation for hate crime laws, in particular, and how they compare to Bill C-9.
Senator K. Wells: I guess we could make the generalization that Canada isn’t the first to introduce these kinds of provisions through Bill C-9. For example, Nazi hate symbols have been banned in many countries around the world. What’s important here too, and maybe what hasn’t come up in the discussion, is that hate symbols work two ways. They’re designed to instill that fear and terror into a community and send a message of hate, but they’re also a rallying call to attract people to those kinds of protests to say, “That kind of fear and intimidation is welcome, and we want you to join us as well,” which is one of the reasons for the legislation: to ban those symbols and make a statement to Canadians that we don’t accept hate and protests that support that kind of hate in the name of community safety but also in the name of protection.
Mr. McSorley: Certainly, and I would agree that symbols do play a particular role in hate crimes, and there’s no denying that. There is a long history internationally of the banning of Nazi symbolism.
Our concern is around the wording, but then also, more broadly, this association with a list of terrorist entities that isn’t created in order to address hate and that, therefore, captures organizations much more widely and that can be used in different ways that have nothing to do with hate. What we’ve seen already with the terrorist entities list is that there have been instances where the decision to list organizations has been discretionary or politically motivated. We would be concerned that by tying hate crimes and this offence to this kind of list, we would end up in a situation where organizations and individuals who aren’t engaging in hate and aren’t displaying hate symbols could still be charged with and accused of that. We think that’s a fundamental flaw with how the government has been going about listings in general and also why we’re not arguing that there should be a separate list of hate symbols, because those kinds of administrative lists often don’t have the same kinds of safeguards that we have when we’re studying legislation such as this.
Senator Moodie: My question seeks to pull together some of what has already been discussed but onto a different kind of frame. I’m trying to get at this balance that legislation is seeking to achieve between rights and controlling certain unwanted behaviours.
Could anyone comment on what you see will be the impacts of Bill C-9 on front-line policing and policing investigative procedures? Where will this legislation impact those and, from your perspective, who will be affected?
Ms. Bussières McNicoll: Besides the issue of how the provision has been drafted and its impact on its constitutionality on its face, it’s important to talk to committee members and to raise the point of the chilling effect that, for example, the intimidation offence will have on the ground. We’re talking about charges that might end up being dropped or dismissed but that will still have been harmful to protesters because they will have been prevented from expressing themselves in a way that is constitutionally protected in Canada and will have been included or brought into the realm of the criminal justice system without good reason.
That’s why it is so important that the legislation that Parliament enacts, especially when we’re talking about the blunt instrument that is criminal law, is very carefully crafted, with the right parameters, to ensure that it doesn’t create unintended impacts on people and a chilling effect. Because if you know that this broadly drafted provision makes you liable for imprisonment of 10 years, or, frankly, will you take the risk of participating in a protest that you know will be unpopular or will create some disruption, even though you have absolutely no intention of being threatening or of being violent and creating a sense of fear? Those are the concerns that are top of mind from our perspective when we’re thinking about on-the-ground effects.
Thank you.
Ms. Lee: The CBA does not have a specific position on how this will impact front-line policing, but in terms of those impacts, I echo what Ms. Bussières McNicoll has said in relation to the chilling effect.
The CBA does highlight that there has been, historically, over-policing of marginalized communities. The people who most need the expressive rights and the protest rights that are protected in the Charter are the people who are most likely to experience the adverse effects of this bill being used against them to hinder their exercise of those rights.
Senator Bernard: I’d like to ask Ms. Lee a question. In your opening remarks, you focused a lot on the language in the bill, and I wondered if you had specific recommendations to the committee or specific amendments that you would want to propose that would address the concerns you’ve raised around language.
Ms. Lee: The CBA doesn’t have any recommendations for specific changes in terms of actual wording that could be taken from us, but the recommendations would be — to put them broadly — to be very precise in what is and what is not being criminalized so that there is absolutely no uncertainty.
The general recommendation from the CBA is that there needs to be absolute precision in this legislation because of its potential to have such a broad impact on individuals and the protected rights that people have.
Senator Ince: Mr. McSorley, you argue that the symbol-based hate offence is redundant and risks broad police discretion. Can you explain how the existing law already addresses this conduct?
Mr. McSorley: Thank you for that question. I’ll echo what my colleague Ms. Bussières McNicoll mentioned earlier that we have already seen in Canada arrests made for hate offences based on the use of hate symbols. We have had the government in the other place in testimony to committee state that current, existing hate propaganda offences already cover the use of symbols in order to demonstrate the evidentiary pattern necessary to lay hate-crime offence charges.
Our concern is the bringing in of a new provision that specifies not so much the Nazi symbolism — because we have deep concerns about how that is displayed and how that has been used in Canadian history — but rather tying it to a list that was not instituted and has its own controversial and questionable basis and tying that to the idea of hate offences and how that could be used in broad and unpredicted ways — unintended but also possibly intended ways — in order to limit free expression.
I would also note that we do have the concern that this is both overly broad, in our sense, and under-inclusive, as was mentioned earlier, because it does not capture hate symbols that are clearly used on a regular basis and in very clear ways against many communities across the country.
We would be concerned that by having this particular focus, it would also say, “Well, these hate symbols are the ones that police need to be paying more attention to,” rather than emphasizing that under existing hate propaganda offences, we need to be paying attention to how symbols may be used in committing those offences, rather than creating new lists.
That’s why we’re concerned about the redundancy and how the focus itself is misplaced.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: That’s a perfect segue. I’ll pick up on that conversation, and this may be, if we have time, to the other witnesses.
You’re saying that the current tying it to the terrorist entities list is under-inclusive, so what mechanism would you suggest — or the other witnesses — that would be appropriate to add other symbols should this legislation be passed? Given the fact that there are some hate symbols that maybe can be agreed upon as not being appropriate in Canadian society, what’s the mechanism that should be established and the safeguards that you’re talking about?
Mr. McSorley: Thank you for the question.
Given our experience with problems with the terrorist entities list, we have difficulty recommending using that kind of mechanism for creating a new list. I think, perhaps, the only way to really safeguard it would be that very specific symbols may be introduced as legislation — not as regulation — because, as my colleague said earlier, there is a concern that regulation does not receive the same level of scrutiny and can be easily changed.
If we were to accept the basis that we require a new list rather than, perhaps — our argument, in the work that we do, is often that there needs to be more training of police and more education done in terms of what constitutes a hate symbol and how they’re being used rather than putting those specifically in the law. Because, as we’ve seen in our work in other ways, once they’re in there, there is a specific focus and an assumption that those are the main concerns at the expense of other concerns.
We would be hard-pressed to say what the best mechanism to do so would be, but doing it by regulation and by another administrative list, we think, would be problematic.
Senator K. Wells: Do we have time for the other witnesses to jump in, the CBA or the CCLA?
Ms. Lee: The CBA thinks it shouldn’t be left to regulation. It should be properly debated and studied through specific statutory amendments. The list should set out every symbol that’s intended to be there so that they can be fully considered through the proper parliamentary process.
Ms. Bussières McNicoll: The CCLA agrees. Our position is that the focus should be on the intent of the individual and the intent to wilfully promote hatred.
From our perspective, a new list is not necessary, but to the extent that one is to be enacted one way or another, there should be ample democratic dialogue and scrutiny, and introducing it through legislation is what ensures that these requirements would be met.
Senator K. Wells: Some have suggested creating an advisory committee, perhaps, for the Minister of Public Safety so that communities that are impacted would be able to suggest symbols. Then maybe that gets introduced through regulation or legislation. Is that something anyone has thought about, in addition, perhaps, to the terrorist entities list as a way to — hate symbols can change over time, and they can emerge, and they can disappear as well.
Are there are thoughts on that? Maybe we’ll start back online with the CBA or CCLA?
Ms. Lee: The CBA does not have a position on that.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
CCLA?
Ms. Bussières McNicoll: We have no specific position on that, but I would caution against the politicization of that list. As you say, symbols can come and go, but the focus of criminal legislation should be the intent and not sending the signal to the police that what they have to be very mindful of is this specific sign or that specific sign.
Mr. McSorley: I would agree with my colleague Ms. Bussières McNicoll. The idea of an advisory committee, in general, to discuss these issues is an excellent idea, but the focus needs to remain on intent.
The Chair: Ms. Lee, Ms. Bussières McNicoll and Mr. McSorley, thank you for your presentations. They will be very helpful to us as we consider this bill. Thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimony will be under deliberation and part of our considerations. Thank you.
We turn now to our third panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make opening statements of five minutes each. This will be followed by questions from senators.
With us by video conference, please welcome, from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Mr. Robert Johnson, Deputy Chief and Co-chair of the Special Purpose Committee on Hate-Motivated Crime; from the Toronto Police Service, Katherine Stephenson, Chief Superintendent, Investigative Support Command; from the Edmonton Police Service, Nicole Chapdelaine, Deputy Chief, Investigation and Support Services Bureau; and, with us in the room, from the Ottawa Police Service, Ali Toghrol, Staff Sergeant, Community Safety Services. Welcome to you all.
I invite Deputy Chief Johnson to make his presentation.
Robert Johnson, Deputy Chief and Co-chair of the Special Purpose Committee on Hate-Motivated Crime, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police: Thank you very much. Distinguished members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, police agencies across Canada have experienced a significant rise in hate crime incidents, with an increasing number of groups and communities targeted for no other reasons than their beliefs, ethnic origin or national origin, religion, colour, race, sexual identification or gender identity.
The most notable recent increases have involved hate crimes directed at the Jewish community and their institutions. As this committee recently pointed out in its study on anti-Semitism, this pernicious form of hate has existed throughout Canada’s history, from exclusionary immigration policies and formal professional restrictions in the past to contemporary forms of hate on Canadian streets, communities and online, often driven by conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns from around the world.
In a country where our immigration policies toward Jews escaping the Nazi regime were accurately characterized by the words “none is too many,” we owe an obligation to the Jewish community — indeed, to all targeted communities — to make sure their lives in Canada are free from fear, insecurity, hatred and discrimination.
When it comes to addressing hate-motivated crimes, communities across Canada are telling us they’ve lost confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to address their concerns. It is our belief that the amendments proposed in Bill C-9 can assist in reassuring and restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system by strengthening the ability of police and Crown prosecutors to respond to hate-crime offences. This will provide greater protection for communities targeted by hate and enhance overall public safety.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, is supportive of the evolution of Bill C-9 following a review by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and endorses the amended version of the legislation as passed by the House of Commons.
Canada’s chiefs of police acknowledge that the Attorney General oversight continues to serve an important safeguard function by ensuring that hate-propaganda prosecutions are grounded in sufficient evidence, reflect the public interest and guard against misuse of the criminal process, including vexatious, politically motivated or frivolous proceedings.
Retaining this oversight is especially appropriate for privately initiated proceedings, which do not involve the same investigative scrutiny, evidentiary standards and prosecutorial screening that accompany police-led investigations.
At the same time, the effectiveness of the Criminal Code’s hate-propaganda provisions depends heavily on the justice system’s ability to respond in a timely and coordinated manner.
Police services require efficient and responsive prosecutorial decision making so that where the legal threshold has been met, charges can proceed without unnecessary delay. Incidents involving the wilful promotion of hate often generate significant community fear, public outrage and heightened social tension. Prolonged delays in obtaining prosecutorial approval or Attorney General consent can undermine public confidence in both the police and the broader justice system, particularly among affected communities, who may perceive inaction as indifference or an unwillingness to denounce hate-motivated conduct.
That is why we wish this legislation to be accompanied by greater transparency and expedited processes in obtaining the Attorney General’s consent if the consent requirement is to be retained.
The CACP supports a new offence of wilful promotion of hatred because it reinforces the critically important point that hate-motivated acts take place not only through written and oral communications but through the use of terrorism and hate symbols.
At the same time, the proposed new paragraph 319(2.2)(c), “. . . a symbol that so nearly represents a symbol . . .” presents practical enforcement challenges for front-line officers due to the inherent subjectivity involved in determining whether a modified symbol falls within the scope of the offence. Such subjectivity may contribute to uncertainty as to whether the display of the symbol falls within the offence section. It may also increase the risk of Charter challenges related to unlawful or arbitrary detention by the police. However, without this wording, individuals could slightly modify a symbol or a flag in order to find themselves outside the scope of the offence.
To support consistent and fair enforcement following enactment of the legislation, the CACP recommends the development of an operational guidance resource developed collaboratively by government, law enforcement, prosecutors and relevant community stakeholders that identifies officially recognized terrorist and hate-related symbols and provides visual examples where appropriate. Such a resource would not replace the legislation or limit prosecutorial discretion, but would assist police in applying the law consistently while supporting enforcement, integrity and individual rights.
The CACP also welcomes the removal of the good-faith religious exemption defence in the Criminal Code. This defence has never been successfully employed in response to an allegation of wilful promotion of hatred. The legislation, as amended, now includes a clarification that reasonably addresses concerns that the removal of the defence erodes the ability of anyone to communicate on a matter of public interest, including education, religious, political or scientific statements in the course of a discussion, publication or a debate.
Hate-motivated crimes are uniquely harmful not only because they attack a person’s identity and sense of well-being. When an individual is targeted for who they are, the harm extends beyond that person; it impacts their entire community. For example, here in Toronto, when a synagogue or a mosque is fired upon, when a Jewish school is shot at or when community members are threatened, assaulted or harassed online or their homes or businesses are vandalized because they are members of an identifiable group, the psychological and social damage resonates widely.
Creating specific offences for hate-motivated crimes demonstrates to the offenders, the public and the affected communities the seriousness of these acts, because they categorize these offences as hate crimes from the outset, with enhanced penalties available on indictment, rather than merely considering hate motivation as a potential aggravating circumstance at the end of sentencing.
Equally importantly, this categorization will ensure that a criminal record reflects when prior offences are hate-motivated. This is particularly —
The Chair: Deputy Chief, I am sorry. Would you wrap up, please?
Mr. Johnson: Okay. Canada’s chiefs of police recognize the urgency of addressing hate-motivated crimes targeting all vulnerable communities, including those disproportionately under attack.
The CACP believes Bill C-9 represents an important step toward strengthening Canada’s response to hate propaganda, intimidation and hate-motivated crime. In particular, the CACP endorses the new intimidation and structured offences, the creation of the new category of hate-motivated offences to ensure that all crimes motivated by hate are eligible for enhanced penalties and adequately reflected on an offender’s criminal record.
The statutory definition that adheres to the Supreme Court of Canada’s definition in R. v. Keegstra and the creation of a new offence addressing the public display of specific terror-related and hate-motivated symbols to promote greater certainty —
The Chair: Thank you very much. We’ll now move on to Chief Superintendent Stephenson.
Katherine Stephenson, Chief Superintendent, Investigative Support Command, Toronto Police Service: Thank you for the invitation today.
My role within the Toronto Police Service is to oversee the Investigative Support Command, which includes our new Counter-Terrorism Security Unit, within which our expanded Hate Crime Unit is embedded.
Before I go into the details of the proposed legislation and answer your questions, I would like to provide some additional context about the situation in Toronto. Just last week, the Toronto Police Service released its 2025 Annual Hate Crime Statistical Report. The report shows that there were 231 reported hate crimes last year, marking the lowest count since the initial spike in 2023. However, it is important to note that so far in 2026, we have seen a 24% increase in reported hate crimes compared to the same time last year.
Hate crimes can target any community, and we have observed that spikes often correlate with major news events and geopolitical tensions, including during the pandemic and, more recently, the conflict in the Middle East.
Since October 7, 2023, Toronto Police have made 524 arrests and laid 1,297 charges in connection with demonstrations, protests and hate-motivated offences. In recent weeks, we announced an arrest and a charge of wilful promotion of hatred in relation to anti-Semitic signs displayed during a protest in March. An arrest was also recently announced in connection with firearm discharges targeting synagogues in the Greater Toronto Area.
The increase in hate crime we are seeing is having a profound impact on our communities. What we are consistently hearing is that this rise is not just affecting individual victims; it is creating a broader sense of fear and trauma that are being felt across neighbourhoods and throughout our city.
The Toronto Police Service believes that Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, is a step in the right direction. It will give more legal tools to law enforcement to protect communities, and, knowing hate crimes can serve as a precursor to violent extremism, these additional tools will support early intervention, which is critical to prevent escalation and to address risks before further harms occur.
Bill C-9 represents meaningful progress. However, additional measures could be considered to further strengthen the legislation.
Law enforcement must be able to operationalize the law. On the displaying of certain symbols, for example, our goal for engaging on this issue has always been to facilitate our officers’ ability to respond to terror-entity flags being carried during protests.
One of the consistent concerns we have heard is that delays in enforcement can be perceived by the public as a lack of enforcement. While the proposed changes to the display of symbols provide greater clarity through specification, there will still be challenges in assessing whether those symbols meet the high legal threshold for promoting hatred, and enforcement will continue to take time.
To simplify enforcement in situations where these symbols are displayed, we are proposing that the offence of public incitement of hatred be expanded to include the public display of symbols such as flags associated with listed terrorist organizations, as an additional element of the offence.
This change would enable officers to take immediate action with decisiveness and clarity, laying charges where the display of terrorist flags constitutes public incitement of hatred, particularly where the terrorist flag is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and providing clear authority to seize and secure evidence. This would also promote greater consistency in the application of hate crime laws by front-line officers who are called upon in the moment to make complex decisions.
On creating a hate-crime offence, it will provide police with a clear charge to directly address hate, rather than relying on section 718, which applies only at the sentencing stage. It would also support a standardized approach in how cases are handled, help identify repeat offenders and create more opportunities for early intervention.
Our number one priority is always to keep our community safe. Overall, Bill C-9 is a step in the right direction, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the proposed legislation. Thank you.
Nicole Chapdelaine, Deputy Chief, Investigation and Support Services Bureau, Edmonton Police Service: Good afternoon, chair and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and to offer a law enforcement perspective on Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, as it is now before the Senate.
As Deputy Chief of the Edmonton Police Service, I oversee the Investigation and Support Services Bureau, including our Hate Crimes Unit and major investigations.
Hate crimes require strong deterrence and clear denunciation. They do not harm only one victim. They are meant to intimidate entire communities. From a policing perspective, Bill C-9 is an important opportunity to strengthen the legal framework, support accountability and improve public confidence in how hate-motivated offending is addressed.
Edmonton is a diverse and growing city. To keep residents safe, our service supports the core objectives of Bill C-9 and the effort to give police, prosecutors and courts clearer tools to respond to hate-motivated crime.
I will briefly explain why we support the bill’s main provisions and why they matter operationally.
First, Bill C-9 has changed since it was introduced and is now before the Senate for study. That review matters. Hate-propaganda offences raise complex evidentiary, constitutional and operational issues. For front-line officers, specialized investigators, prosecutors and the courts, clarity in the law is essential.
Whatever final form Parliament adopts, our interest is in a framework that is clear, workable and nationally consistent. Police must investigate objectively, meet legal thresholds and work closely with prosecutors. Legislative clarity and national consistency support fair, effective and apolitical enforcement.
I also want to acknowledge that I speak on behalf of a police service with a specialized hate crimes unit. Many agencies across Canada do not have that level of specialization. That is one reason clear legislation, training and national consistency are so important.
We support the proposed offence relating to the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols. Operationally, this gives clearer direction while still requiring police to prove all necessary elements, including wilfulness, promotion of hatred and the connection to an identifiable group. That clarity is valuable to investigators and to the public.
We also support the creation of offences addressing intimidation, obstruction and interference with access to places used for religious worship or by identifiable groups for protected purposes. These provisions matter because they draw a clearer line between lawful expression and criminal conduct meant to frighten, block or deter people from gathering safely in their communities.
Our service strongly supports the stand-alone hate-crime offence. Its absence affects investigations, data collection, intelligence development and community safety operations. There are several reasons this matters.
Establishing an independent section would create a uniform national definition of hate crime. Currently, over 170 police agencies across Canada utilize varying definitions or lack them altogether, resulting in inconsistencies, confusion and gaps in accountability. A standardized, codified definition would harmonize law enforcement, judicial entities, the Crown and academic researchers, facilitating a coordinated and effective response on a national scale.
This approach would also enable precise and dependable data collection aimed at reducing hate crimes across Canada. Police often categorize hate crimes as general offences — such as assault or mischief — which makes them challenging to monitor. Having a dedicated section would allow Statistics Canada to more effectively track these incidents, thereby enhancing federal and provincial data used for public safety initiatives led by police. For the first time in Canadian history, a separate hate crime section would be directly linked to Statistics Canada’s established crime database, facilitating more comprehensive and accurate data collection compared to the current fragmented method.
Standardized reporting helps spot repeat offenders, extremist groups and new hate threats so police can prevent crime with targeted resources.
Reliable data enables evidence-based policing and fair funding, ensuring resources address measurable criminal issues. Improved data guides policies, prosecution, investigations, prevention, victim support and community programs.
Introducing this section enhances public trust. Designating hate crime as a distinct offence sends a strong message that Canada will not accept actions targeting marginalized groups. It also shows that law enforcement and government authorities are dedicated to confronting hate crimes in a serious manner, reinforcing the commitment that such offences will not be tolerated.
This codification reinforces Canada’s core values: equality, inclusion, diversity and human rights. Hate crimes undermine both individuals and the principles that support social cohesion.
Ultimately, this reform will help educate police and Crown officials, make court proceedings clearer and set up a well-defined legislative framework and case law to ensure consistent justice across the country.
For many years, Canada’s hate-crime laws have too often been experienced as reactive. Bill C-9 gives Parliament an opportunity to be more proactive by clarifying offences, improving consistency and reinforcing the message that targeted intimidation and hate-motivated offending will not be tolerated.
In closing, the Edmonton Police Service supports the core objectives of Bill C-9. A stronger legislative framework, better data and intelligence, stronger prevention and greater public confidence will better equip police and justice partners to protect the communities we serve. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Over to Sergeant Toghrol.
Ali Toghrol, Staff Sergeant, Community Safety Services, Ottawa Police Service: Good afternoon, chair and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today as part of your study of Bill C-9.
My name is Staff Sergeant Ali Toghrol. I lead the Community Safety Services Unit, and I’m the former head of the Hate and Bias Crime Unit.
Ottawa was the first police service in Canada to launch online reporting of hate crimes, and, in 2019, we relaunched our hate crime unit as a stand-alone investigative unit. Since then, we’ve developed investigative guidelines and policies; trained every sworn officer, call taker, dispatcher and recruit; and provided hate-crime training to partners such as the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Parliamentary Protective Service, local universities and social service providers.
We’ve helped numerous other police services in establishing their own hate crime units, and we’ve chaired the federal Hate Crimes Task Force. Our team developed Hate Crime 101, now offered nationally through the Canadian Police Knowledge Network, and we assisted the Canadian Police College in the creation of their hate crime course.
The precedent-setting Ottawa case R. v. Batbouti, which involved the Nazi flag, and our investigative steps in R. v. Koppe have become national training examples, demonstrating the complexity and importance of specialized hate crime investigations.
Following October 7, 2023, we introduced a mobile hate crime unit to support demonstrations, helping Ottawa record one of the lowest increases in hate incidents among large Canadian cities. That said, we welcome the federal government’s focus on protecting Canadians from hate-motivated intimidation, harassment or violence at places of worship and cultural gatherings.
I want to address several specific elements of the bill.
First, concerning the repeal of Attorney General’s consent for hate-propaganda prosecutions, sections 318, 319(2) and 319(2.1) of the Criminal Code are highly complex and contain specific statutory defences. These matters are never black and white; they require specialized legal expertise.
In Ontario, police rely on our hate-crime Crown advisory team, which plays a major role in the Attorney General approval process. This review ensures that cases proceed appropriately and consistently across the province.
Removing the Attorney General’s consent requirement could lead to misinterpretation of these sections and inconsistent application of the law, ultimately diminishing community trust in both policing and the justice system.
Second, on creating an offence for wilfully promoting hatred by displaying symbols, existing Criminal Code provisions, specifically sections 319(1) and 319(2), already cover this conduct. They apply to anyone who, in a public place, communicates statements, including words spoken or written or recorded electronically, gestures or signs that incite hatred against an identifiable group. Under those provisions, displaying a hateful sign or symbol already constitutes an offence. It is important that any new wording complements rather than duplicates these existing sections.
Third, on creating a stand-alone hate-motivated offence, we support this concept. Establishing a specific offence for crimes motivated by hate would send a clear signal to victims and communities that such acts are taken seriously from the outset and not merely considered later as a sentencing factor. Hate crimes harm not only individuals but entire communities. Recognizing the hate element at the charging stage would acknowledge the broader impact and would strengthen public confidence in justice.
Finally, regarding the creation of offences for intimidation or obstruction at religious or cultural sites, subsections 176(2) and 176(3) and section 423 of the Criminal Code already provide tools to address intimidation or interference with access to religious worship. However, given the changing nature of public expression and the politicization of some demonstrations targeting places of worship, additional tools would be welcome. We have seen how such targeting creates fear and unrest within communities. Any new provisions that assist police and Crown prosecutors in addressing these incidents while maintaining respect for legitimate protest and freedom of expression would enhance community safety.
While we support the overall intent of Bill C-9, clarity in its definitions will be critical. Terms like “disruption” and “religious or cultural place” must be precise to prevent confusion between lawful protest and hate-motivated obstruction.
Equally important are training, prosecutorial guidance and national consistency. Proving hate motivation is complex; without specialized training and Crown collaboration, enforcement will risk being uneven. Federal and provincial investment in these areas will make the law meaningful on the ground.
In closing, the Ottawa Police Service fully supports the goal of protecting Canadians of all faiths and backgrounds from hate‑motivated harm. We ask that Parliament ensure Bill C-9 provides clear, enforceable definitions, maintains necessary legal oversight and is supported by resources for training and community engagement. That combination is what will make this legislation effective, fair and trusted by the people it is meant to protect.
Thank you, chair and members. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you all for your presentations. We will now proceed to questions from senators. You have five minutes for your question, maybe four, because we’ve had four presentations, and that includes the answer.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for being here and for your testimony today.
A theme that I think I’m hearing from each of your opening remarks is that you like this bill. You think this bill will remove barriers that police have faced in terms of enforcing existing laws, and it might actually help you in your efforts to support victims of hate crimes and whole communities who are also impacted by hate crimes. Given your support for the bill, I have a couple of questions I’d like to ask.
First, are there any unintended consequences that may happen as a result of this legislation?
As my second question, we’ve heard pros and cons about listing symbols. We know that symbols often precede violence. Do you think we should be naming specific symbols or not? What are your perspectives on that? Would the naming of specific symbols be helpful to you, or would it be a barrier?
Mr. Johnson: Senator, with respect to unintended consequences, our judicial system would be able to help us in that regard. Obviously, with everything that the police do, there are potentially unintended consequences. To be able to identify them here at short notice, I am at a loss. Maybe my colleagues can help in that area.
The second question is around the specificity of identifying symbols. From a policing perspective, it would help because it takes away some of the ambiguity that our officers face. You’ve heard through our depositions this afternoon that it would help to give some clarity.
But as mentioned in my remarks and echoed by some of my colleagues, there needs to be some further review, maybe through the regulations or through further study, to identify specific symbols that are not already identified. We often find that folks are clearly manipulating symbols that have been identified as illegal. They make minor changes so they can get away with it. We’ve had an incident in Toronto, at least one that I’m aware of, where a person had a designated terror symbol, a flag, which we seized. You heard the earlier panel talking about the intent. The person said they didn’t know what it was and that if they had known what the symbol was, they wouldn’t have flown it. In my submission, the fact that you have a symbol that has been identified on its face should be enough to lay that charge and proceed with it.
Ms. Stephenson: I could add to that if you don’t mind. I can speak to it from a Toronto perspective and the number of protests that we have and the symbols and flags that are displayed during those protests.
One of the challenges that front-line officers face is there being multiple interpretations for one symbol. When you have more than one interpretation, the legal analysis in the dynamics of a protest is incredibly hard. The expectations we place on those officers to make that legal analysis and decisions are hard. We end up seeking expert advice in the moment and doing our best to manage it.
It is my belief that if we had a very clear list of symbols available to officers at the front line, it would allow for more decisive and clear decision making and more clarity and confidence in those decisions.
Senator Bernard: We’ve heard from two people on this. I would ask a follow-up question for the other two witnesses.
If we had a specific list, based on your experiences and what you’re seeing and what your data is telling you in your respective cities, are there symbols that you think should be added to the existing list?
Mr. Toghrol: I’ll speak to what we did here in Ottawa. After October 7, we met with members of the community, and we had a very frank and honest conversation with everybody in terms of what we would deem to be acceptable in terms of demonstrations and what kinds of signs and symbols we would not tolerate.
Creating legislation is fantastic, but if that educational piece isn’t passed on to the community . . . We want to create a list, but then, in the last 10 years or so, we’ve seen such an increase in terms of different signs and symbols that have been created by sort of White nationalists that we’ve never seen before. Sure, there is a handful that can be instantly identified, but what do we do in terms of the new symbols that are created?
If we’re specifically talking about the Nazi flag and Nazi symbolism, we laid that charge under public incitement of hatred because, again, section 319(1) clearly explains: a symbol or sign that targets an “. . . identifiable group . . .” and “. . . incites hatred . . . .” That is very clear. I understand that, from a training perspective, yes, it would be easy to have a list that every front‑line officer could have in their hand. Sure. But, again, we need to extend the education to our communities so they’re aware that, yes, you have the right to demonstrate, but also what is appropriate when you are doing these types of demonstrations.
I kind of went around in a circle, but that’s the best way I can explain. I don’t believe that we can create this depository of signs and expect everyone to check one off and say, “Okay. You can’t have that.” It’s just too simple.
Ms. Chapdelaine: I won’t go much further. My colleagues have answered that question. I agree with Mr. Toghrol that it is difficult because there is such a transition in what we are seeing. It’s hard to say, “Here is the group you need to look at,” because we need to have that clarity as these things continue to progress. We need some ability to allow for whatever the new thing is. I think Deputy Chief Johnson spoke to the changes that we have seen. People can change a flag quite quickly to make it not fit. There is not much more to add than what my colleagues have already said.
Senator Arnold: Thank you all for being here. It has been really interesting to hear your approaches — particularly Staff Sergeant Toghrol — on the education and the initiatives you’ve taken.
I come from New Brunswick, and it is a more rural area. We have no specialized hate units. I’m curious if you would have any advice for some of those smaller communities that are dealing with this, and it’s very new in places like New Brunswick.
Mr. Toghrol: I had the same conversation with Halifax police when they wanted to initiate their hate crime unit, and I helped my good friend Craig Upshaw when he initiated that program.
Again, one of the goals with the federal task force was to create a very basic Hate Crime 101 that could be shared across Canada so that small services could have a basic understanding of just how to deal with a very complex set of circumstances.
If you look at the last 15 or 20 years and the creation of these specialized units, we created them because there was a demand. Intimate partner violence, sex assault, child abuse and drug enforcement sections — these are all specialized units that came in because there was a need for it.
We are at a point right now where we need to really focus on having specialized units across Canada that deal with hate crimes, specifically in areas where you do see a concentration of these offences that are taking place. You can have all the legislation you want. We can simplify things as much as we can, but if you don’t have specialized training and members within organizations who can actually investigate this properly, then we’re back to square one.
Senator Ince: My first question is going to be open to anybody who has an interest in answering it.
Civil liberties groups argue that the intimidation provision could criminalize peaceful protests. How would police operationally distinguish between protests and criminal intimidation in practice?
Mr. Johnson: I’ll give a 30-second start, and then I think Chief Superintendent Stephenson from Toronto might be able to elaborate a bit.
What you have to look at is affected communities and how they feel. The context of these protests matter, and when you talk about intent, there is intent on the part of the person allegedly committing the offence. But the other side of the equation is sometimes forgotten, and that is how the affected person or community feels about what is being shown or said or the protest. That’s the part that will help instruct that part of your question.
Ms. Stephenson: Maybe I’ll just add from the — [Technical difficulties]
The Chair: Chief Superintendent Stephenson, we’re having some difficulty hearing you because of the delay, so we’ll go to, perhaps, one of the other witnesses who would like to jump in.
Ms. Chapdelaine: I recognize that in Alberta — obviously, hate crimes are hate crimes, but I know what Toronto sees and what Ottawa has seen is a little bit different from what we have here.
To answer the question, we do a lot of work through our police liaison team to work with these groups for protests to set out those expectations and allow people to have the space they want to have for what they want to do openly but to make sure that we have an expectation and understanding of what that’s going to look like and the parameters to stay within.
I think establishing those has allowed us in Edmonton to manage the protests we see in a good way, where we haven’t had so many issues, and it’s the times where we have some of the community breakdown where we’re not having that conversation that is causing some of those issues.
Then again, the question we have with those groups is what their intent is if they’re not going to want to work with us to allow us to give them the space they need and don’t want to participate in those conversations ahead of time to ensure that everyone who is enjoying that space can do it as peacefully as possible.
Senator Ince: How will officers determine whether the symbol is sufficiently connected to hatred versus political expression, especially in complex geopolitical contexts?
Mr. Toghrol: We recognize that. That is why, within two weeks of the mass number of demonstrations we had after October 7, we initiated our mobile hate crime unit, which included having hate-crime-trained members participate in demonstrations, because, again, it’s unfair to put everything on our front-line officers. They are bombarded — it is information overload, and they’re not really the experts in this.
We had trained, qualified individuals who can make that determination, and then we had, again, myself and our other supervisors over at the command centre, who were actively — if a picture is taken, for example, we’re looking at it, and we’re giving that direct line of communication with our front-line folks who can make that determination.
Again, it’s training — how much training we can provide to front-line officers — and then to back that up and have specialized training on the back end to support that front line.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: First, I’d like to thank all of our witnesses for your leadership and service in keeping our communities safe. I don’t think we say that often enough, so thank you.
Given that what we’ve heard so far is that most of you are in support of the majority of what’s in Bill C-9, my question is really focused on what comes after Bill C-9. I’ve heard two things today that really stood out from your comments about the importance of specificity and specialization when addressing issues of hate.
I’m wondering what further supports are going to be needed to help educate and operationalize the new laws contained within Bill C-9. We’ve heard some examples. Some communities and police services have benefited greatly from having specialized hate crime units or specialized officers. Other examples might be the need for more training of Crown prosecutors to work closely — we understand police officers can build the case, but sometimes the Crown prosecution may not agree or may not have the same specialized knowledge that a hate crime unit may have.
Thirdly, around public education, what is the role that you see for public education after Bill C-9, working alongside all of you in your communities? What lessons have you learned? What kind of resources and supports are you going to need to operationalize the laws that are coming potentially into force with Bill C-9?
Maybe we’ll start with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police for the national perspective on that.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you for your question, and it’s very timely. What we have started to do is look at ways where we can make sure that there is a national picture and consistency, not only in the approach but in the training as well.
I know here in Toronto and Ontario, specifically, we’ve been very good at sharing our insights with some other organizations, as you’ve heard. At the CACP, we are actively looking at creating a tool kit or a resource guide that will assist chiefs across the country to be able to inform the decisions that they make and the training that they will decide to roll out in their organizations with support through a CACP tool kit or tool guide.
What we’re waiting for is the finality of this bill to see how we can integrate that to make sure we have a consistent national approach to these very impactful issues.
What I also should mention — and you mentioned it; thank you for that — is this is not just a policing issue. We have to make sure we work with our federal and provincial prosecutorial teams to ensure they also have the requisite training to understand the impacts of what this legislation is and how it affects police agencies throughout the country. So that’s something we’re hoping to engage with.
We don’t represent, obviously, those entities but in most jurisdictions, and certainly here in Toronto, we have a good relationship with our Crown prosecutors, federal prosecutors, and we want to include them in that training resource to be able to provide a consistent national approach to this.
Senator K. Wells: We have one minute, so maybe we’ll go to Edmonton and Ms. Chapdelaine.
Ms. Chapdelaine: Thank you, Senator Wells. I agree with Mr. Johnson on having that consistent training. I like the work we do through the CACP on the tool kits and the ability to send out to all agencies. Because, as I said in my presentation, with 170 police agencies utilizing varying units, or no units at all, it’s important, from a CACP perspective, we get that out to all of the police services.
And, of course, if nothing more than ever, we need to rely on each other as police services, as well as with our prosecutorial partners, in terms of sharing best practices. What are we learning? What do we have? What tools — so we’re not all recreating the same thing and that we’re leaning on each other in these spaces. We all experience things differently over time, but at some point they make their way across the country. So, again, that standardized training is going to be important. I’m quite comfortable that CACP will be able to deliver that.
I agree with Mr. Johnson on the prosecutorial side of it. Training is as important, if not more important, for the understanding to work with the members in the agencies when we’re dealing with these kinds of events and crimes.
The Chair: Thank you so much. I have a question with regard to the digital nature of hate crimes, whether that be symbols or in some other way, but it’s digital platforms that are being used. I think in your descriptions you’ve talked about it from an in‑person demonstrations perspective, but what are you seeing digitally? That’s my first question.
Second, with respect to some disaggregated data that you can share with us — based on, particularly, cities like Ottawa or Edmonton, which have hate crime units, and I think Toronto does as well — what are you seeing in terms of data that you’ve been collecting? And how is that data being collected with respect to communities that have experienced hate crimes?
Because in the examples you’ve laid out so far, it has been specifically around anti-Semitism, but what about other communities: queer communities, racialized communities, et cetera? We’ll start with you, Ms. Chapdelaine.
Ms. Chapdelaine: Starting with your first question around the digital piece of it, I would suspect we’re seeing some of the digital — I won’t have the exact numbers for that right now. And I think part of the issue that we have with the digital side of it is because we have — and I think all of my peers have spoken to that — people who don’t fully understand and appreciate what they’re seeing digitally and recognizing what they’re seeing when they’re going through some of our — if they’re seizing a phone off somebody in that matter. So I don’t have those numbers before me, but I suspect we do see some of that stuff.
We know that a lot of these things and a lot of these groups work in the online space, in the online world. We haven’t talked about some of the stuff that’s going on with youth. The concern that we have, from a policing perspective, is the number of youth getting involved and brought into the space through the utilization of cyber, so I think it’s something we need to be aware of and consider moving forward.
In regard to our numbers, we started — similar to Ottawa — an online portal for reporting hate incidents versus just hate crimes, and we’ve seen a slow evolution. As we build trust with our communities, we have more people wanting to report online or reporting to police because they maybe have more trust in what we’re trying to do because we have a hate crimes unit.
And you’re right; we see the anti-Jewish events continually trending upwards, but we also see a little bit higher the anti-Islam, anti-Arab numbers and, of course, the anti-2SLGBTQIA+. These things kind of ebb and flow throughout the year, depending on certain events. We’ll see in June, obviously, an increase with Pride coming up; we see the numbers start to increase. And, of course, with some of the stuff that we’re having provincially here, we see some of the increase with some of the decisions being made at a provincial level that’s impacting us, and we see our trends go up and down.
We do track all the communities, and most of these things are impacted by geopolitical events or decisions that are being made at a local level that kind of increase some of the reporting or some of what we’re seeing from a crime perspective.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Chapdelaine. We’ll go now to Toronto, Ms. Stephenson.
Ms. Stephenson: First, I’ll address your online piece. So the recent data around that in the Hate Crime Report is that online hate went up 15% this year, and that’s three times higher than it was the year before. I think that’s in line with online radicalization. This is the online environment; the spread of hate has no borders; it spreads internationally. And it was touched on by the deputy in Edmonton around youth and online radicalization. I think as a country we have to move in that direction.
I will say there are lots of investigative challenges when it comes to online hate as well, a number of judicial authorizations. The suspects hide behind being anonymous, which makes it incredibly difficult.
I think it’s also important that public incitement of hatred, which falls under hate propaganda — we laid five charges of public incitement of hatred in 2025, all of them related to online hate, which I think is important because that is a high threshold charge to hit.
I’ll just speak a bit about the data here in Toronto. We do have a centralized unit. We tripled our hate crime unit, which allowed for better centralized data to identify trends. An interesting thing we’ve done here is use hate crime data to do a daily deployment document, meaning that when we see a rise in hate crimes in certain communities in the city, we are able to proactively deploy resources to that area as a preventive measure.
And we’re also seeing, within our data, some of our hate crimes — we are able to make linkages in that they’re actually more organized. For instance, mischief, crimes against property — we’ve seen organized campaigns and hate campaigns come out of those investigations, which, prior to being centralized, having 16 divisions, those mischief investigations were difficult to link together.
The Chair: Mr. Toghrol, before you answer, I want to attach something else to that. Based on your experience with the hate crime unit here in Ottawa, and the Bill C-9 legislation, do you find it inclusive enough, based on maybe some of the stats that you’re seeing with other forms of hate?
Mr. Toghrol: The terminology is clear enough that it encompasses all the impacted communities. Again, for us, the Jewish community, the Muslim community, 2SLGBTQIA+ and the Black community are typically the top four that we have, but each has its own challenges. It’s not one-size-fits-all.
When we looked at our statistics in 2019, when we launched the unit, we had about 92 reported incidents; the following year, it was 182. We peaked at 467 in 2024. And every time we make this presentation to our chain of command and to the public, we get this scary look from people. We didn’t all of a sudden become four times as hateful and racist as we were in 2019. It’s just that with the creation of the unit, when the public knows there is a specialized unit and the amount of work we did in the community to build trust in the community, the reporting goes up.
So I think, again, that aspect of it is very crucial. And one of the conversations that we had with the various communities was, “What happens when we report this? What do you guys do after the fact?” We made sure that, as much as we could, any time a charge was laid, we would do a media release because, again, it shows the public that it’s being taken seriously and charges are being laid. It’s both to protect the public and also to warn individuals that there are consequences for such actions and these are the charges that are applicable.
I don’t want to say it’s one of the successes — because I wish I didn’t have this job and weren’t in the hate world — but that’s one of the successes we had in our communities: the relationships and the trust that we built in the community. It’s not perfect. There is always room for improvement, but that is the major part.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you all for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimony is going to be very helpful as we deliberate on this legislation.
I will introduce our fourth panel of witnesses, who have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each. This will be followed by questions from the senators.
From the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, we have Shawna Y. Paris, Chair; and from the Organization for the Prevention of Violence, Stephen Camp, Project Director, Hate Crime Centre.
I invite Ms. Paris to make her presentation, followed by Mr. Camp.
Shawna Y. Paris, Chair, Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Shawna Paris, and I bring greetings as the Chair of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission. I am honoured to be a part of your study of Bill C-9 from both the human rights perspective and from a social-legal perspective and also as a sixth-generation Black Nova Scotian. I am also a defence lawyer and a forensic and clinical social worker and an educator. All of those perspectives I bring to my comments and remarks this afternoon.
Established in 1967, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission is one of Canada’s oldest human rights institutions. The commission is an independent statutory body responsible for administering and also advancing the protections set out in the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act.
The commission’s work places us in regular contact with individuals and communities experiencing racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and other forms of hate and exclusion. We also work closely with public institutions, employers, educators, service providers, community organizations and governments to address the systemic barriers and strengthen human rights protections in Nova Scotia.
In 2023, Nova Scotia had the highest provincial hate crime rate in all of Canada. Hate harms individuals, families, communities, institutions and people’s sense of safety and belonging. Hate can silence people and keep them away from schools, places of worship, cultural spaces, community centres, workplaces and public life.
The urgency of this issue is reflected in the national data that we have in Canada now regarding hate.
I begin from this position: Canada must respond.
My central submission today is that Bill C-9 must be understood not only as a criminal law bill but also as a human rights, community safety and implementation bill.
In the short time I have, I wish to emphasize three points:
First, hate must be understood as harm, not merely as an offensive expression. Hate does more than offend. It can intimidate, isolate and exclude. It can tell communities that they do not belong, that they are not safe and that their presence in public spaces is conditional.
From a trauma-informed and human rights perspective, this does matter. Hate affects how people move through the world. It affects whether children feel safe in schools. It affects whether communities feel safe gathering, worshiping, organizing, advocating or simply existing in public. Hate is not abstract. It is experienced in the body, in the nervous system, in families and across generations.
Second, the law must be clear, precise and Charter-conscious. The goal must be to target hate, intimidation, obstruction and the wilful promotion of hatred, not legitimate disagreement, religious discussions, academic debate, peaceful protest, political expression or advocacy.
The federal Charter Statement for Bill C-9 recognizes that the bill engages several Charter-protected freedoms: freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of peaceful assembly. The same Charter Statement explains that the proposed definition of “hatred” focuses on detestation or vilification and clarifies that hatred does not include mere dislike, disdain, offence or humiliation. That distinction is important. Communities harmed by hate need protection.
Third, implementation will determine whether this bill protects people or actually reproduces harm. A law can be well-intentioned and still have disproportionate impacts if implementation is not carefully monitored. For Bill C-9 to be effective, police, Crown prosecutors, courts, judges and community institutions must be equipped to understand hate through a trauma-informed lens, a culturally responsive lens, an anti-racist lens and a human rights lens.
This is especially important because many communities do not report hate. We see that from the numbers. They may fear they will not be believed. They may fear retaliation. They may fear the justice system itself. Others may have historical or current experiences of discrimination in public institutions.
I respectfully offer three recommendations:
First, Parliament should ensure clear national guidance for police and Crown prosecutors on interpreting the application of Bill C-9.
Second, implementation should include mandatory training on trauma-informed practices, anti-racism, cultural safety, religious literacy, disability, gender diversity and the lived realities of communities targeted by hate.
Third, there should be public reporting and data collection to monitor the legislation’s impact, including who is protected, who is charged, whose complaints are taken seriously and whether racialized and marginalized communities experience improved safety.
In closing, on behalf of myself and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, I urge this committee to treat Bill C-9 as more than a Criminal Code amendment. It is an opportunity to strengthen Canada’s response to hate, while also insisting on clarity, accountability and respect for fundamental freedoms.
The law must be strong enough to name hate. It must be precise enough to protect Charter rights. And it must be accountable enough to ensure that racialized, religious, Indigenous, 2SLGBTQI+, the disabled and all other marginalized communities are protected rather than further harmed.
Honourable senators, I respectfully submit that this committee should ensure that Bill C-9 maintains this careful balance.
Thank you. I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Paris.
Stephen Camp, Project Director, Hate Crime Centre, Organization for the Prevention of Violence: Honourable chair and honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Stephen Camp, and I serve as the Program Director of the Hate Crime Centre at the Organization for the Prevention of Violence.
I come before you with more than two decades of experience dedicated to understanding, investigating and addressing hate crime in Canada. As a former hate-crime investigator, I currently research and develop policy, training, capacity-building strategies and legislative reform. My perspective is grounded in evidence, jurisprudence and the lived realities of communities who continue to experience hate-motivated harm.
Bill C-9 represents a modernization of Canada’s hate-crime framework and positions Canada among the world’s leading jurisdictions in this respect. It strengthens protections for targeted communities while remaining grounded in the Charter and jurisprudence. Its provisions are aligned with core legal and democratic principles such as harm, retribution, proportionality, culpability, morality, symbolism, deterrence and denunciation.
This bill does not extend the state’s reach beyond what the courts have already upheld; rather, it clarifies and strengthens its coherence and enforceability regarding hate-crime laws.
Bill C-9 establishes a new subsection of the current hate-propaganda sections — the wilful promotion of hatred when accompanied by the public display of certain prohibited symbols. This offence remains firmly confined to the long-standing high threshold articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada for the wilful promotion of hatred offence and is grounded in decades of jurisprudence, interpreting and balancing the Charter protections for freedom of expression, opinion and conscience.
Moreover, the section acknowledges the significant emotional and psychological harm to targeted communities by wilfully promoting hate by way of hate symbols, which diminishes community Charter rights and their right to self-actualize in a democracy.
The bill further removes the religious expression defence. The courts have, regardless of the presence of the religious exemption, assessed the hate propaganda legislation through the lens of established jurisprudence and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — a careful balancing of the rights to freedom of religion and expression against the statutory prohibitions on hate propaganda.
The removal of the section — sometimes described as redundant — will not alter this necessary legal analysis with or without the religious defence. Courts will continue to apply rigorous scrutiny to ensure that the legal thresholds are satisfied vis-à-vis the Charter and established case law.
Notably, Bill C-9 strengthens protections for legitimate religious doctrine and expression by clarifying legislative intent. The bill explicitly states that:
For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred . . . solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.
Or:
For greater certainty . . . nothing . . . shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement —
— or discourse —
— . . . if they do not wilfully promote hatred . . . .
These statutory clarifications codify what Canadian courts have long extrapolated from Charter jurisprudence: that the threshold for criminal liability is narrow, contextual and does not capture good-faith religious teaching or doctrinal belief.
One of the most important elements of Bill C-9 is the creation of a stand-alone hate-crime offence. This renders Canada as a world leader in combatting hate crime, and the benefits make it a force multiplier, enhancing democratic principles, freedom, safety, justice and understanding. The benefits include an improved response to public safety; a recognition of hate crime’s harm and its affront to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and the understanding that the government takes this dehumanizing, destabilizing and corrosive crime type seriously. Naming the harm matters.
Operationally, the provision will improve police response, provide a national definition of hate crime for the first time in Canadian history, increase reliable and accurate data collection and increase public safety strategies at the local, provincial and federal levels.
The intimidation and obstruction section of the Criminal Code is not new in Canada. Bill C-9 adds subsections to the existing section 423 and focuses on intentional attempts to instill fear, deter access, undermine or obstruct the ability of targeted communities to safely participate in public life and provides guidance to the police and prosecution services. It does not restrict peaceful protest, advocacy or dissent. Those rights remain fully protected under the Charter.
What it does prohibit is intentional coercive conduct: behaviour intended to intimidate people when they are attempting to enter their place of worship or a place used by identifiable groups.
For these reasons, I strongly support Bill C-9 and its five provisions.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentations. We will now proceed to questions from senators. We will begin with Senator Bernard, our deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: Thank you both for your testimony today. It has been quite helpful. My first two questions are for Ms. Paris.
You talked about recommendations. Could you elaborate on recommendations for training that you were suggesting needs to happen when this bill comes into force?
Ms. Paris: Thank you for your question, senator. I answer this from a lens of a lawyer for 31 years now. I work with the law. What I understand is that if, in fact, the application is not understood — how to apply the law — then it doesn’t serve the purpose for which it is established.
Education is key. I was fortunate enough to be able to hear a couple of the panels earlier today, certainly with the police services, and they were right on point in terms of the necessity of education and training for police services.
But I’m also a social worker. When I hear that, I have to hear it from a cultural and a trauma-informed lens. That makes a difference, especially if we are looking at sections of the new legislation where the interpretation is based on a criminal process intent, the mens rea. When we are talking about hate, race and discrimination, how do we actually dig deep enough in understanding whether or not that truly is a hate crime? We were talking about symbols and signs today. Is it possible that an individual does not understand the significance of a certain symbol if they have it on their car? The possibility does exist.
Going back to points made earlier today, education is key. That would be a recommendation for me, not only for the service providers, police services, definitely defence counsel, prosecutors and judges, but also for the public. The legal education piece has to be a part of it and from a very broad lens. That would certainly be one of the recommendations.
I could speak to other recommendations in terms of what came up in terms of specialty courts. Why would we not have a specialty court? Nova Scotia has several specialty courts, and they seem to work well. They don’t operate every day, but when you have a court where the judge is familiar with what the issues are, what the legislation is and how to apply it on a regular basis, as with the prosecutors as well as the defence team, then that also is an opportunity to move these types of cases forward within our legal system. It appears to be supportive.
Senator Bernard: Thank you. Do you see embedding an intersectional lens and a trauma-informed lens into the work, into that training?
Ms. Paris: Absolutely. Because we are looking at it from a human lens. We are complex as human beings. We come with, basically, our own experiences, things that will hold us. With this particular legislation, it may exist. It may be different, but will people utilize it? So the intersection is basically to understand the application. Who is using it? Who needs to use it? Then, adjust the training and the education to that. It has to be with a very broad brush because otherwise I see that certain components of this legislation could be both a shield and a sword. And how does that benefit the communities we are hoping to assist with this legislation?
Senator Bernard: I’ll pose the question to Mr. Camp. Mr. Camp, I would be interested in hearing more from you about the importance of naming the harm. You said naming the harm matters. I would like to explore that a bit further in the context of this bill and how you see this bill being helpful in that process.
Mr. Camp: International research and temporal — in a temporal sense, as well — for decades has focused on the incendiary, really extremely impactful and negative harm and trauma that hate crime has on individuals, communities and society as a whole. That research has been clear through peer‑reviewed articles and scholarly research for decades. Naming it is really important. It’s symbolic for the communities to look at their government and their legislators as an entity that takes this type of harm quite seriously and to see them moving to protect the targeted and vulnerable communities with robust legislation and to protect the sacrosanct components of a functioning democracy. For example, the stand-alone hate crimes section is, I think, one of the most important sections there. For the first time in Canadian history, we are actually naming this particular crime type.
When I teach community — I educate the community members on hate crime — every time I say to them that there is no stand-alone hate crime section in the Criminal Code, that there is no charge section, there are gasps. There are literal gasps in the room when that happens. Naming it is really important.
Plus, there are a lot of benefits to having the hate crime section, besides understanding the harm to community and our society, everything from robust data collection to a national hate crime definition. When someone is researching homicides or child luring or sexual exploitation, one of the first things you can do is go into the Criminal Code and look at the case law and legislation to understand exactly what it is. For researchers, governments, community organizations and police around the world and in Canada, for decades, the definition of “hate crime” has been elusive and piecemeal. It’s very hard for a researcher to research hate crime when police services are not able to capture the data.
The last thing I want to say is — and you may have heard this in previous testimony today — the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey will not connect to a crime type unless there’s a section in the Criminal Code. If I’m a police officer on the street putting in my report on a hate crime, if it is not codified in the Criminal Code, there is no connection to UCR2.4, which is the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, so we’re not capturing data. That’s why you have the 2019 General Social Survey, the GSS, showing 223,000 hate crimes occurred in Canada that year, whereas the police-reported hate crimes were under 2,000. That is an incredible disparity in numbers.
Codifying hate crime in the Criminal Code actually connects to a national database that’s in existence right now. For the first time in Canadian history, we are actually collecting hate crime data accurately with the national standard definition. All that is rolling into this as well, which is paramount for our democracy.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ince: Thank you both for presenting here. My question is for Ms. Paris. Human rights commissions often operate in the intersection of protection of vulnerable groups and the safeguarding of freedoms. In your view, does Bill C-9 strike the right balance between combatting hate and protecting Charter rights? Or does it lean too far to the other side?
Ms. Paris: Thank you for your question. Again, it goes back to my earlier remarks, Senator Ince, in terms of the need for a fine balance. The Charter is our guiding document in all of this in this country and for those particular freedoms that it, in fact, covers.
In looking at this legislation and being mindful of my remarks now, as I sit here as Chair of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, there are sections of the legislation where — again, I go back to it — there needs to be a clear understanding and a clear interpretation of the language of this legislation and then also the actual implementation and application of the legislation so that it does not compete with our Charter, of course. I’ll leave it at that.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses. These questions are for Mr. Camp. Sir, your experience and the evidence you give can help us bridge enforcement, prevention, radicalization, community intervention and data. These questions are around data. What data gaps currently prevent Canadians from understanding hate crime accurately? What needs to be measured very specifically?
Do you see Bill C-9 as helping to improve prevention rather than focusing on punishment? If so, how do you see that?
Then, how would you design a three-year review measure to determine whether Bill C-9 is actually working? In other words, is it helping the communities it is designed to help?
Mr. Camp: On the data collection component, like I just talked about, not having a national definition makes it difficult to collect data at any level of democracy — academia, government, police, intelligence services. Not having a proper definition is really problematic.
Second, two databases are really important to data collection. I just talked about the stand-alone hate crime section. When you have it in the Criminal Code, it’s codified. It is then coded for UCR2.4, which is the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey for StatCan. That will automatically start to happen when you have the national definition. Police officers, with or without charging a suspect, can put in the report as a hate crime for the first time in Canadian history. So, now you are collecting data.
I would highly recommend, too, some incentive for police agencies to have some sort of specialization within the agency. Hate crime and hate propaganda legislation and case law and investigations are highly complex, and they are not for the front line, unless they have some oversight with them. I would highly recommend that, even for the smaller agencies that have only 80 or 100 or 200 people. I was at Taber Police Service last month, where they have 28. You don’t have to have a full unit all the time. You could have a coordinator or someone given that portfolio to at least verify the files and say, “This is a hate crime,” and move forward at that point.
There is the Integrated Criminal Court Survey as well, with a codified hate crime section, when the files start making their journey into prosecution services. Right now, the hate crime data is not collected inside prosecution services and through the criminal justice system once it leaves the hands of the police. With it codified, you can start to track prosecutions, convictions and sentencing. All of that stuff comes into play, but, without it, they can’t do that. So, data collection on that point is really important to see if the courts are handling hate crimes appropriately.
In regard to prevention, there is deterrence and denunciation, first of all, and then the symbolism of the immorality of hate crime in our society, which will be a preventative component as well. But we never forget, within our organization, the components of restorative justice programs. There are agencies in Canada that do this work with people involved in radicalization to violent extremism, including hate crimes. Part of the job is to prevent them from moving in that direction.
With understanding what hate crime is, more organizations, including police and intelligence units and our national security people, will be able to move potential offenders into these programs to prevent them from radicalizing to violent crime, including hate crime. There is a public safety component to hate crime. It is on the continuum of violent extremism. Ideologies that spur people to move into hate crimes can also spur them into the federal policing area and into terrorism. There is a fulsome understanding of that right across Canada. We see hate crime as one of the components of the violent extremism world that we have to attend to and prevent our youth who are being radicalized and moving them off that pathway into violent extremism.
Senator Arnot: If you are going to design a three-year review to measure whether this is successful, what would it look like?
Mr. Camp: The simple one, first of all, is every time a hate crime unit starts up, you go from zero hate crimes in that jurisdiction to 70 overnight. That’s the first thing. I always tell police chiefs when I speak to them that this is a good thing. If your agency is showing hate crimes in your jurisdiction, that’s probably a good thing — even though for us it’s a bad thing — because hate crimes are one of the most under-reported crimes in Canada. To have them coming into police reporting is great. That’s the first thing.
Then there are evaluation surveys to the police services community, which is stuff that we do in our organizations. There is research to see if institutions in a democracy are handling hate crime properly and get evaluations from that. You get that data and research and move forward with policy development to augment that component. What helps with that is the hate crime stand-alone section because then you will have as accurate data as we can get in the criminal justice system. It is a big step to start collecting the data. If I want data on homicides or sexual assaults, I can go and get it from Statistics Canada. It will be as accurate as one can get. Right now, for hate crime, you do not know what you are getting. It is difficult for all of us to do the work without proper data collection. A stand-alone hate crime section is one of the most important pieces in Bill C-9. I hope that helps.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnold: Yes, that helps a lot, actually. I don’t think I fully comprehended the barrier to collecting this data. Thank you very much for that.
Just on those three questions, did you have anything to add, Madam Paris, on the data gaps or the prevention or the three-year measure? Did you have anything you wanted to add?
Ms. Paris: No.
Senator Arnold: Okay. As a fellow Atlantic Canadian, I’m curious why you think Nova Scotia has these somewhat alarming rates. Do you have a theory?
Ms. Paris: I do, actually. You have to think about the composition of the population in Nova Scotia. In particular, in the Halifax Regional Municipality, or HRM, we have seven major universities there. That, obviously, brings new people into the country, international students in particular, and many of those stay. In addition to that, there was a change also in terms of immigration law. I don’t have any data on this, but anecdotally, as someone who has been in the city since 1974, you saw an immediate change in terms of the diversity. The population has changed quite dramatically in the HRM area. I cannot speak to the rural communities.
That’s it. It is that whole adjustment to people who have been there for generations then questioning what is happening, how these changes are happening and why they are happening so quickly. That has been one of the major concerns. Looking at the cases through the Human Rights Commission — the types of cases that are coming through now, at this point — we have the enumerated grounds under the legislation, but you could take some of those enumerated grounds and fit them into this hate bill as well. One of the major concerns is that adjustment has not kept up. That seems to be it: People coming in, new Canadians, also people coming from other parts of Canada as well, and we haven’t provided the public education around all of that, which is an absolute necessity.
Senator Arnold: Thank you for that. I would completely agree with that assessment. It could be applied to Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton as well in New Brunswick.
Ms. Paris: I agree.
Senator Arnold: That education component is so incredibly important. It feels like it comes at us in all of our studies right now. I do think that Atlantic Canada is maybe a few decades behind the rest of Canada, particularly in welcoming so many different cultures to our communities. I liken it to living in a sort of bubble where everything was peaceful and utopic, and then, boom, all of it happened so quickly. Could you speak a bit to the education and what you are doing specifically in your region?
Ms. Paris: Yes. Basically, within the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, there is a division around education that offers information to the public in terms of understanding the different groups, the diversity that’s happening in the community. That specifically happens through the Human Rights Commission.
Quite frankly, it is not happening enough just based on perhaps the municipalities offering more public legal education around diversity and also around legislation, even in terms of the Criminal Code as it exists now and its application and/or lack thereof. We know there is racism in our societies, in our communities, certainly in Nova Scotia, and our numbers were high in 2023. But I think if it were more broadly advertised and the public made aware, that would be key in terms of people coming forward.
There was some mention in terms of restorative processes and other forms of education. That is key. It is not always about going through the criminal justice system or the justice system. As I mentioned, we have seven major universities just in HRM alone. We need to get them on board. I’m leading to more partnership in terms of this legislation.
The broader it is and who it connects with is what will bring about the change that is necessary in terms of its application as well as the results that we are looking for, and even the types of data that will come forward at that point in time. All we need to do is look at the Supreme Court of Canada. How many cases have we had in this country over the years that are based on hate crimes? How far does the court take them? How many Courts of Appeal across the country have been able to look at legislation that exists — we’ll say the Criminal Code itself — and have been able to say, “We have jurisprudence around these laws and, in particular, the codified parts of the Criminal Code now that speak to different aspects of hate”? It is extremely limited in this country.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: My question will be to Mr. Camp. We have heard from some individuals and groups that they feel that the removal of what has been called the good-faith defence will criminalize religious text or doctrine under Bill C-9. First, do you agree with that or not?
Second, based on your long-standing experience as a police officer who specialized in hate crime investigations, could you walk us through what an analysis of the wilful promotion of hatred would actually entail for a successful charge to be laid?
Mr. Camp: The first question was?
Senator K. Wells: Yes, I threw two big ones out there. The conversation around the removal of the good-faith defence and if that will criminalize religious text or doctrine under Bill C-9, which is connected to the wilful promotion of hatred.
Mr. Camp: I have looked at that defence that’s built into the Criminal Code. When Supreme Court judges, defence counsel, prosecution services and police look at whether they have a charge under the wilful promotion of hatred in the context of a religious doctrine, that piece of legislation is not looked at. They analyze it through jurisprudence and the Charter.
It is interesting. Sometimes I look at that section as redundant. It can stay or go. It doesn’t really matter when the analysis is done. It is done vis-à-vis the Charter and established case law and jurisprudence. At the end of the day, if that defence were not in there, defence counsel would bring it up anyway with or without it because it would be a robust defence but it would be analyzed through the lens of the Charter and established jurisprudence. I look at that particular section of Bill C-9, and in a legal analysis some people would look at that piece of legislation. As a defence, it’s redundant and can stay or go. It won’t really matter.
Senator K. Wells: And the second part of the question?
Mr. Camp: When you are looking at, for example, the symbols law, one of the most important components of that is the wilful promotion of hatred. The voluminous case law on the hate propaganda section is unreal and complex.
If you are going to be moving forward with a prosecution on the wilful promotion of hatred, right off the get-go you need six elements that have to be proven: that the communicating statements were in the public domain, that you are wilfully and intentionally promoting — that word has been analyzed through case law for years — hatred against an identifiable community. There are six components right there, and each one of those components has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt right from the get-go of the police investigation. You can’t proceed with charges unless you’ve got those reasonable and probable grounds, and that is analyzed through the entire judicial file journey, all the way up if it goes to the Supreme Court.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high threshold in the first place, but there are six really strong elements that have to be proven throughout that particular file; that’s at section 319(2), hate propaganda. If you are conjoining that to symbols, that’s part of the analysis. If you are looking at the displaying of symbols in a public place, you still have to prove that you were promoting hatred in a public place and communicated beyond a reasonable doubt. So all the six elements would have to be proven as well. It is an enormous, arduous process that is established by hate crime investigators across Canada and specialized units that have to be attended to.
The other thing to remember is that, with the file moving forward, there are supervisors and staff sergeants and Crown prosecution services. You have to get AG consent and you have to go beyond a reasonable doubt with all six elements of that particular section. Public incitement of hatred has five elements that have to be proven, and advocating genocide has four. They all have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt as well.
Senator K. Wells: To underscore that, this notion of wilful promotion of hatred is a very high bar to meet in terms of successful prosecution of any of the hate crimes charges. In general, an incidental or accidental action or display is not going to meet that threshold, yes?
Mr. Camp: Correct. The case law is clear that recklessness would not be caught under that domain. Wilful blindness would be. If you think it could promote hatred in the community but you didn’t stop the wilful promotion of hatred anyway, then it will be caught up. But recklessness or accidents cannot be caught up in that.
It is an incredible piece of legislation. It is why we say to agencies they should have a specialized person handle hate propaganda investigations because it is highly complex, transnational, and most of it is online. The elements are extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If one of them is not there, the whole file and the investigation are gone. The threshold is extremely high, yes.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much. Mr. Camp, I wanted to ask you a question because the practicality of your presentation is very much appreciated.
Mr. Camp: Thank you.
The Chair: I wanted to get your perspective on specialty courts, as your co-witness talked about, and what that would look like or whether or not you think it is a good idea.
Mr. Camp: When that was said, I was like, she is right on the money.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Camp: Yes, I highly recommend it. I mentioned the complexity of these files that require a high level of acumen by our investigators and our prosecutors. Right now, we do train prosecutors because a lot of general prosecution services don’t understand and have a difficult time getting around hate crime laws and case law. Having a specialized prosecution unit or person in a small jurisdiction who has a high level of expertise is a necessity on a practical side. I have talked to many investigators in the hate crime realm over the decades, and if they have high acumen and the file moves to general prosecutions, the file sometimes is lost because of the lack of understanding.
I’m a big advocate for specialization, both at the prosecution level and also at the police agency level, because of the complexity of the hate propaganda files, but proving motivation is another component, too. If you have a hate crime, you have the act that has to be proven, and then you have the mens rea and intent, but you also have to prove motivating factors, which is another burden on both the Crown and the police agency. Having a fulsome understanding of the indicia or indicators or evidence of hate motivation is really important so you do not lose that evidence as well. That specialization, both at the Crown level, for all hate propaganda and hate crime charges, and at the police agency level, is highly recommended.
The transnational nature of hate crime and hate propaganda and the connection to violent extremism at the federal policing level — a lot of it is online. The practical understanding of gathering evidence at a transnational level, out of jurisdiction, like getting data from internet service providers or social media platforms from different continents, is an important component of these investigative processes and prosecutional understanding, and having a higher acumen in that field is what you need and is required.
The Chair: Ms. Paris, could you comment on whether or not a specialty court could also include — I think you mentioned this — a restorative justice process, and how that could work with the set-up of a specialty court?
Ms. Paris: Yes, absolutely.
Again, specialty courts are not about condoning behaviour or letting people off the hook. It is still about holding people accountable, but it is, if I can say, putting the perpetrator through a process that educates them while also holding accountability. I am a social worker and a clinician, and I believe in rehabilitation. I believe that human beings are very complex, and we do not always know what we don’t know, even when it comes to our behaviours and when we talk about hate and harm on all levels. I could see where a process of a restorative approach would work well within the specialty court.
In Nova Scotia, we have the domestic violence court, and part of the referral piece is to actually send the individual — the perpetrator — off to programming so that they are being educated in terms of understanding the harms that they have done. That’s basically what a restorative justice process looks like in any event. And it would work not in all cases but, hopefully, in many cases. Again, we’d have to collect data on that, but it would be beneficial — not only beneficial in terms of the individual because we’re educating people, but also beneficial in terms of the community as well.
The Chair: Mr. Camp, we have heard from a number of different panels about the importance of education. Can you comment on that from the work that you do, whether or not you see it as something that could be useful in terms of prevention?
Mr. Camp: Yes. So we’re currently heavily involved in Western Canada in regard to training law enforcement and criminal justice system participants, including corrections and prosecution services. What we are finding is that when we do a pre-survey, the average understanding of hate crime legislation and concepts is moderate to low, and then when we finish, it is really high. So then what we’re seeing is the development, through the education of augmenting and capacity, of being able to manage hate crime better within that agency. So we see a real benefit in training and education. Then, when we do community as well, because we educate the community on these same principles, we see the same thing as well.
Training and education for both the community and the criminal justice system sector are paramount for appropriate police response. The research shows quite clearly that vulnerable and targeted communities of hate and violent extremism want a robust response from the persons charged with responding to it, including police. When they are not getting that, there is a trust issue that disintegrates. Police officers are attending scenes, not thinking this is so serious because it is not a high-level crime, but for the victimized community it is very serious and is a public safety issue because their whole community is being targeted.
That lack of understanding by front-line policing can evaporate or diminish that really important trusting relationship between the community and our law enforcement institutions. We teach about the harm of hate crime, the trauma of hate crime as well, so they have a better understanding of the complexities of this particular crime type.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ince: Mr. Camp, this question is for you: Your work focuses on preventing radicalization and violence. Do you see Bill C-9’s criminal law approach as effective in preventing hate‑motivated violence, or does it come a little too late in the cycle?
Mr. Camp: It is never too late. I think it is an important component. I really do.
One of the first things that I see in this bill — and I will refer to the stand-alone hate crimes section — is a quick identification of hate crimes. Then you roll in the issues of training and education, and I think that’s really important for police services across the country to understand this.
What you have is immediate understanding and recognition of what the hate crime is and its connection to violent extremism, and then an appropriate response, either through a restorative justice process as offender intervention or more coercive methods, like some people may have to be charged and moved through the system.
It is vital for prevention because of the legal concepts of harm, deterrence and denunciation that are all rolling into it as well. Then you throw in proportionality and retribution, consequences and culpability, and you have all that coming together for an appropriate response that all moves to prevent hate crime from happening.
With the quicker identification of hate crime, you are able to — there are a lot of individuals who are in that realm. If you’re not really sure what to do with them, the intervention programs are magnificent with that quicker identification of someone in the hate crime realm. Because of the stand-alone hate crimes section, you can easily move them into intervention programs from across Canada. The costs are enormously different between a full-fledged investigation on a group that’s committing hate crimes or into the national security realm versus an intervention program. You are looking at a quarter million dollars for a full-fledged, high-level investigation with all sorts of investigative techniques, and then you are moving into an intervention program, so you are looking at $250,000 versus a $15,000 kind of thing. There is an economic benefit as well, and I think it is the right thing to do.
Bill C-9 helps establish early intervention points that are not there right now because of the lack of definitions, and with definitions and legislation comes case law. Past case law guides future interventions as well, so that’s really important.
Senator Bernard: This question is for both witnesses: We have heard both sides of the argument around the use of symbols in the bill, so I would like to know what your thoughts are. Should we be listing symbols, and if we are listing symbols, are there some that are missing?
Ms. Paris: Thank you for the question, senator.
I think to list symbols would be exclusionary. I think that, really and truly, the idea is to keep it broad. There are parts of this act that should be read narrowly, but other components of it should be very broad because we do not want to miss anyone or a symbol, and symbols can change on a daily basis. It is very fluid, depending on who the group is and/or the symbol.
I would say that the language around the symbols should be kept broad, and that, to me, would be more inclusive than having a list because the list then becomes a checklist. When the threshold is already high on the criminal prosecution side, then it may be more of a barrier than an access point.
Senator Bernard: Your suggestion would be to have no list?
Ms. Paris: That’s right.
Senator Bernard: Mr. Camp?
Mr. Camp: One thing about that particular section, which I think is prudent, is conjoining the symbols to the wilful promotion of hatred. I think that’s an important safeguard, and it is important to do that. I wanted to say that.
The symbols list, I’m still grappling with that one. The good thing about the list of terrorist entities is that this issue becomes less of an issue, because it is not the list we have to be concerned about. It is if the terrorist entities that are established in the Criminal Code are using symbols. I’m talking about the terrorist entity component here, so if I say that this terrorist entity is now using this symbol, I have to prove that, so that way, we do not have an established, cemented list.
As time evolves, certain groups that are cemented are going to use certain symbols, and if you can make that link, then you could have a charge. The list is able to evolve, and you do not have to update the list all the time. I do like that component.
Then there is the hakenkreuz and the SS bolts as an established list, and, yes, the inclusion and exclusion component is an issue there, I think. How many you put in and how many you put out would be something that we would have to grapple with.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you. My question is for Mr. Camp. We will start there.
We have heard from some witnesses that the new laws proposed in Bill C-9 are redundant and already exist within offences in the Criminal Code of Canada, for example, intimidation, obstruction and hate symbols. Do you feel the new offences proposed in Bill C-9 are appropriate and necessary?
Mr. Camp: They are appropriate. Criminal law is interesting. You can disaggregate, first of all, criminal law based on harm. If you look at, for example — I’ll use an analogy — sexual offences, they are broken down into dozens of different types of laws, depending on the harm that is done to either children or by domestic violence. All that comes into play.
Disaggregating criminal offences or concepts into different categories is nothing new, and it is really important for our legislators to be able to do that and really focus on specific harms that are caused by specific offences in a general category.
When you look, as well, at the intimidation and obstruction section and the symbols, I don’t think it is redundant. The symbols do have an immediate effect on our victimized communities. Everybody can see them from afar, and they communicate a specific ideology of hate, so they are quite impactful. It is important to disaggregate that for both the community and the police for them to understand but keep it conjoined to the wilful promotion of hatred.
The intimidation and obstruction charge, that is established under section 423 already, and it has very good case law on that. I like the fact that it is very specific to a particular harm that it is doing to society, where people or individuals or groups are targeting specific institutions that are focused on that identified community and oppressing them or coercing them into not going into their place or not coming out of their car or having to walk through, sometimes, gauntlets of people, or the car gets surrounded. That is really important in that intimidation or provoking fear is an important component. That helps guide our criminal justice system agencies that are charged with this particular offence.
It is more specific than the general intimidation offence that is in place right now, and it actually mirrors the Alberta Health Services’ one as well, which is actually a pretty good piece of legislation when it comes to the intimidation and obstruction component. It does act as a very specific guide.
Senator Ince: Ms. Paris, this is for you: Civil liberties groups argue that the intimidation provision is overly broad and could capture lawful protest. From a human rights perspective, do you share those concerns, and how should the provision be narrowed, if at all?
Ms. Paris: I do share those concerns in terms of what an understanding of thinking about peaceful or lawful protests would be and who those entities would be, what groups and what cultures would be protesting. Depending on the lens of who is seeing the protest, it could be or couldn’t be determined to be intimidation in some ways.
In actual fact, what group is it? We have to keep this in the context of we are in a country where — and I am just going to say it — we know racism exists, right? So, basically, depending on who is enforcing at the time, where they’re at and what the protest is, then it could be misinterpreted as being intimidation as opposed to a lawful protest, and that is a concern.
I think that some of the marginalized groups and various cultures, ethnic groups that look at this legislation as it applies to them may say it is — on that particular point — more of a sword as opposed to a shield for them, depending on, again, what the protest is and such.
Senator Ince: Thank you so much.
The Chair: That’s the end of this panel. On behalf of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank you both for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimonies will be very helpful in our deliberations.
Senators, I will introduce our fifth panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each, which will be followed by questions from senators.
With us, from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, we have Richard Marceau, Senior Vice-President, Strategic Initiatives and General Counsel; welcome. And from the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, we welcome Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, Senior Director, Policy and Advocacy. Joining us online, from B’nai Brith Canada, please welcome Richard Robertson, Director, Research and Advocacy. Finally, joining us in person, from the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, please welcome Mark Sandler, Chair.
I invite Mr. Marceau to make his presentation.
[Translation]
Richard Marceau, Senior Vice-President (Strategic Initiatives) and General Counsel, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs: Madam Chair and senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
I am here on behalf of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the advocacy organization of the Jewish Federations of Canada and Jewish communities across the country.
[English]
To discuss Bill C-9 properly, context is important. Since the Hamas-led terror attacks of October 7, Canada has experienced the most severe wave of anti-Semitism in generations. The escalation of violence, of intimidation and of attacks targeting the Jewish community this year alone is unprecedented.
I could give you statistics, for example, that 68.5% of religiously motivated hate crimes targeted the Jewish community, but statistics only tell part of the story. Jewish Canadians have endured schools shot at; synagogues firebombed and vandalized; violent assaults and stabbings, including at a grocery store here in Ottawa; coordinated intimidation campaigns targeting community institutions; open glorification of listed terrorist entities; and multiple terror plots targeting Jewish communities here in Canada, including here in Ottawa.
They are the result of growing extremism, of radicalization and of the normalization of support for terrorism. What was once confined to the fringes of society is now visible on our streets, on campuses, online and in Jewish neighbourhoods.
[Translation]
The greatest fear of all is that the Jewish community will be attacked in the same way the Jewish communities have been in Great Britain, the United States and, of course, Australia.
This is not just theoretical: Canadian security agencies have informed us that a violent attack targeting the Jewish community is a very real possibility in the coming months.
[English]
Bill C-9 represents an important and necessary step to strengthen the tools that are available to law enforcement and to prosecutors to protect targeted communities and hold criminals accountable.
We welcome key provisions in particular.
[Translation]
First, the definition of hate in the bill now includes — and this is a good thing — the wording used by the Supreme Court in the Keegstra decision. That was an important amendment.
[English]
Second, the new intimidation and obstruction offences are urgently needed. Across the country, synagogues, schools and community centres have repeatedly been targeted by harassment and intimidation campaigns. Nobody should fear dropping their kids off at school. Nobody should fear visiting an elderly parent, and nobody should fear attending religious services.
[Translation]
Third, the creation of a new, distinct offence related to hate crimes could have significant positive practical implications, because it would ensure that hateful motivation is considered as a constituent element of the offence itself, rather than merely a factor considered later during sentencing.
[English]
We would further encourage Parliament to consider adding this offence to the list of reverse-onus bail provisions, but that’s for another time.
We strongly support the bill’s provisions targeting the public display of terrorist symbols because the glorification of listed terrorist entities should carry meaningful consequences.
Bill C-9 has broad support, including from Jewish institutions — you can see that now — legal experts, law enforcement, and in your many hours of study so far, you have met and heard from them.
Passing Bill C-9 would send a clear message that Canada will not tolerate hate-motivated violence, intimidation or the support for terrorism. But — because there is a but — we can have the best laws, but if they are not properly enforced, it’s pointless. Laws in the books need to be enforced. The tools are there, and law enforcement must use them.
I want to end, Madam Chair, with a message not only to Jewish Canadians but to all Canadians. Extremists are not only targeting Jewish Canadians. They threaten the safety of us all. They threaten the values we share. We need all Canadians to take a stand because while Jews may be the target today, what extremists are aiming at is something bigger, and that is our Canadian way of life.
Please adopt Bill C-9. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau. We will now go to Ms. Kirzner-Roberts.
Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, Senior Director, Policy and Advocacy, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jamie Kirzner-Roberts. I’m the Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Over the years, I’ve worked on hundreds of hate-related cases targeting the Jewish community, alongside victims, law enforcement and prosecutors. This work has given me a direct view of both the devastating impact of hate crimes as well as the serious shortcomings in Canada’s current legal response to hate and extremism.
This experience has also left me with no doubt that Canada is facing an unprecedented anti-Semitism crisis. Over the past two years, we have seen record levels of hate targeting our Jewish community. Assaults, vandalism, arson, firearms incidents targeting schools and synagogues, not to mention terrorist plots in multiple places across the country.
According to Statistics Canada, Jewish Canadians are the minority group most targeted by hate crime in the country. That is a lot of hate directed at our tiny community, less than 1% of the national population.
Behind these statistics are real people and a real community living in fear: Jewish parents like myself questioning whether their children are safe at school, students hiding visible signs of their identity on campus, synagogues and community institutions pushed to the limit by the need to invest so heavily in their security in order to operate.
Why should my small children have to pass a barrage of police armed to the teeth with long guns just for us to celebrate a holiday? This is not the Canada that I love.
Too often, our legal system is failing us. It is failing to respond to this crisis effectively. We are seeing hate crimes remain under-reported, under-investigated, under-prosecuted and too often under-sentenced. In many cases, the Criminal Code does not adequately capture the unique harms of hate-motivated conduct or provide sufficient clarity on how these offences should be prosecuted.
We have seen the consequences of this clearly. In a case that I was involved with last spring, an individual from Newmarket plotted to bomb synagogues across Toronto in order to, in his own words, “. . . kill as many Jews as possible.” He was convicted only of uttering threats, and his punishment was 60 days of house arrest.
For communities already living under threat, outcomes like this are devastating. They undermine confidence in the justice system. It is with this in mind and in this context that we strongly support Bill C-9.
This bill represents an important and necessary step towards strengthening Canada’s response to hate crimes and extremist intimidation. We particularly support the new intimidation and obstruction offences that are designed to protect access to places of worship, schools and community institutions. No Canadian should be prevented from safely attending services, accessing education or participating in the life of their community because of fear and intimidation.
We also strongly support the creation of a stand-alone hate crime offence and the prohibition of the public display of hate symbols like the swastika. These reforms together will provide clearer tools to hold offenders accountable and to help ensure that symbols associated with terror, violence and genocide are not normalized in the public life of Canada.
We were disappointed after an offence that we proposed, along with other organizations in the community, including those sitting alongside me today, that addressed the wilful promotion of terror was not adopted as part of the bill, particularly at a time when terrorist ideologies and movements continue to inspire hate-motivated acts here in Canada. We believe this remains an important gap, and we hope Parliament will address it moving forward.
Nevertheless, Bill C-9 is a significant and meaningful step forward. At a time of rising anti-Semitism, extremism and politically motivated violence, the government has a responsibility to ensure that law enforcement and prosecutors have the tools they need to protect vulnerable communities and uphold public safety.
I thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak here before you today. We urge you all to move quickly to pass Bill C-9. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Richard Robertson, Director, Research and Advocacy, B’nai Brith Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here on behalf of B’nai Brith Canada, Canada’s most senior human rights organization. Our organization, which was established in 1875, is dedicated to eradicating racism, anti-Semitism and hatred in all its forms.
B’nai Brith Canada’s submission to this honourable committee is being made during a worsening national crisis of anti-Semitism. Since 2022, the occurrence of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada has increased by over 140%. For the year 2025, 6,800 incidents of anti-Semitism were recorded in B’nai Brith Canada’s Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, representing an over 9% increase over 2024. The hatred targeting Canada’s Jewish communities is getting worse, not better.
As this committee has already heard and will continue to hear over the course of this study, it is not only the Jewish community that has suffered unnecessarily from the increases in hate, division and incitement plaguing our nation. Hate crimes and hate-motivated occurrences are scourges that disproportionately impact Canada’s most vulnerable and marginalized communities. They are an affront to Canadian morals and values and require urgent redress.
This committee, through its present study, has the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to Canada’s efforts to confront hatred and hate crimes in this country.
Bill C-9 is not a “fix all”; this legislation alone will not cure the underlying issues that allow hate to manifest, but it will provide sorely needed amendments to the Criminal Code to enhance the capacity of law enforcement and prosecutors across the country to combat hate-related offences.
B’nai Brith Canada urges the committee to lend its approval to Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, and to work with the Senate to expedite the passage of the legislation.
Bill C-9 was the subject of extensive review by the House’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Stakeholders, including B’nai Brith Canada and my fellow panellists’ organizations, made submissions to and worked with the committee to ensure that constructive amendments were made.
Following extensive consultation, the House of Commons has now signed off on the legislation. It is now time for the Senate to do the same. It is B’nai Brith Canada’s submission that, in its present form, there is nothing controversial about Bill C-9.
It is our opinion that the criminalizing of the wilful promotion of hatred through the public display of the hakenkreuz, the Nazi double Sig-Rune and/or symbols principally used by or principally associated with listed terrorist entities is not controversial. The exceptions proposed in Bill C-9 sufficiently mitigate the risk of any undue prosecutions.
Similarly, we submit that the stand-alone hate-crime offence created by clause 5 of the legislation is not controversial. The definition of “hatred” proposed in the current draft of Bill C-9 is in line with the definition of “hatred” established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Keegstra and reaffirmed in Whatcott.
As well, the clarification provided in subclause 4(6) of the legislation further restricts when the stand-alone hate-crime offence would apply. It would only apply if the commission of an offence under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament is motivated by an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.
We further submit that the offence created in clause 6, which makes it a crime to engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in a person in order to impede their access to and/or wilfully obstruct or interfere with lawful access to certain vulnerable infrastructure, is not controversial. The proposed offence does not prevent protest or lawful assemblies, nor will it unduly infringe on any Charter-protected rights. It only criminalizes intimidating or obstructing conduct that prevents lawful entry to a clearly defined list of vulnerable infrastructure.
As well, it is our submission that the repeal of subsections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b) is not controversial. Doing so will not criminalize religious speech. The repeal would not deprive persons who are charged under subsections 319(2) or 319(2.1) and who expressed or attempted to establish, by argument, an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text of a good-faith defence. The repeal simply ensures that all those charged under these subsections are availed of the same defences, without any exceptions.
In closing, the state of anti-Semitism and hate generally in this country necessitates amendments to our Criminal Code. By passing Bill C-9, the Senate will be expanding the resources available to law enforcement and prosecutors to ensure that those who are engaging in hateful criminal conduct are held accountable for their actions. Doing so is not controversial and will meaningfully contribute to the fight against hate in Canada.
Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Robertson.
Mark Sandler, Chair, Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here today in several roles, first as Chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, or ALCCA, a non-partisan coalition of 70 community organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish. Second, I’m here as a trainer of police and prosecutors across the country, including now some 40 police services that have been the subject of this training, including, Senator Arnold, some of the police and prosecutors in New Brunswick.
Third, I’m here as the non-policing member of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police Special Purpose Committee on Hate-Motivated Crimes. You’ve heard from Deputy Chief Johnson on that, and I’m working together with the committee on a module for national training that would address some of the issues that you raised in your questions, as well as working on some of the issues around symbols and how police can have some certainty and some direction in the new legislation if passed.
Finally and most importantly, I’m here as a proud Jew. I have been fighting anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred in Canada for over 40 years. But if you had told me back in 1985 that 40 years later I would be witnessing a celebration on the streets of major Canadian cities the days after the barbarities perpetrated on October 7, 2023 — or that I would watch chants of “Sinwar, Sinwar, we have bullets for you,” promoting Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the October 7 slaughter — I admit to you, perhaps naively, I would have been shocked.
If I had been told that some professors and teachers — not marginalized fringe actors — would deny altogether or justify the vile sexual violence perpetrated against women in Israel, or that a protestor in a largely Jewish neighbourhood would display a poster of a hook-nosed Jew reminiscent of 1930s Nazi propaganda, I would have been shocked.
Or if I had been told that social media posts would demonize Jews, comparing us to subhuman vermin, or openly call for the killing of all Zionists, I would have been shocked not by the all‑too-familiar content, with which I dealt back in the 1980s, but by its pervasiveness.
Finally, if I had been told that Canada would face repeated terror plots targeting Jews inspired by ISIS or White supremacist ideology, and that the RCMP would describe six foiled terror plots in Canada within a six-month period, with more to follow its report, I would have been shocked by the number of extremists operating in Canada.
But that’s where we are.
And criminal law is an important tool to address extremism in Canada. Bill C-9, in my view, represents an enhancement of those existing tools. It has evolved substantially, as you have heard, as a result of the hearings conducted in the House. I and others collaboratively proposed amendments to the legislation, most of which were adopted.
The legislation is not perfect, but I support its passage in its current form.
I also observe that 34 of ALCCA’s member organizations advised the House committee that they endorse the amendments I put forward. As you have already heard, the legislation is also supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
I recognize that, in a five-minute presentation, I am unable to explain why each component of the current version of Bill C-9 is legally sound and worthy of passage. I have set out the reasons for that in my detailed written submissions, and, not surprisingly, I commend them to you.
I look forward to the opportunity to answer any questions about the details around the legislation, including suggestions of redundancy and suggestions of unconstitutionality. In my view, these are modest measures, indeed, in Bill C-9.
As you have heard from one of my colleagues, I put forward — with the collaboration of a number of organizations, including organizations on this panel — the suggestion that what is needed, as well as Bill C-9, is a new offence of wilful promotion of terror, because it takes away the issues about whether something is directed against this group or that group and focuses on the promotion of designated terror entities and the terror activities they are involved in. And there can be no licence under our Charter for the promotion of terror. It is an important deficiency that I hope Parliament will look to after the passage of Bill C-9.
Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you all for your presentations. We will now proceed to questions from senators, beginning with our deputy chair, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for your testimony today and for bringing very real emotion to our discussion. It is very helpful.
I have a question for Ms. Kirzner-Roberts. I think you were hinting at potential amendments to this bill. Did I hear that correctly? If so, could you expand, please, on what you were suggesting?
Ms. Kirzner-Roberts: As some of my colleagues in the community have noted as well, my organization really hoped to have an amendment in this bill to add a new stand-alone charge for the wilful promotion of terror. We feel that, in this moment, we are seeing terrorist ideologies and, in some cases, terror networks behind some of the rising hate crimes targeting the Jewish community. We feel that there is no place in Canada for those promoting terrorist ideologies and terrorist symbols. We had hoped that this would be added to the bill. However, we are still hopeful that this can be passed separately, in a separate piece of legislation. We would like to see this bill move forward.
Senator Bernard: To be clear, are you suggesting that as an amendment, or are you suggesting that it be looked at as a separate piece following the passage of this bill?
Ms. Kirzner-Roberts: I would echo what my colleague Mark Sandler said. This bill is not perfect, but it is a really important first step. I would like to see this bill go forward, but I do think that Parliament needs to take a look at what our legal infrastructure is around prevention and deterrence of terror networks in our country, and a stand-alone charge on the promotion of terror should and could be one important piece of that.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
My next question is for Mr. Marceau. We have heard from a number of witnesses so far about the value of education. I know the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs offers training. Could you tell us what your organization might see as potential training that could and should happen following the passing of this bill?
Mr. Marceau: Thank you, senator, for the question. One of the things that I highlighted in my presentation is the fact that not all the tools in the tool box were being used by law enforcement or by prosecutors. One of the reasons for this is a lack of understanding of what actually is in the tool box, what is available to law enforcement, and that is certainly one of the important elements in terms of ensuring that we combat hate with all the tools that are at our disposal.
We support better training for law enforcement and prosecutors. I can say that I am sitting between two groups that also provide training. The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center as well as the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism both offer training. It would be important for all law enforcement across the country to avail themselves of this, as it will only make law enforcement better across the country.
Senator Bernard: Would you limit the training to law enforcement, or would you see it as more encompassing?
Mr. Marceau: I believe it should also be offered to the prosecution and the judiciary. As part of the tools available, one of the things that are very misunderstood now is anti-Semitism and the new or newish forms of anti-Semitism. There are a lot of misconceptions out there. If people do not understand that very particular form of hate, it is hard for law enforcement, prosecution and the judiciary to combat it properly.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: I would like all the witnesses, if possible, to answer this question. What would successful implementation — or what are the indicators of success — look like in Bill C-9 for the Jewish community in the short term, two to four years? Mr. Sandler, Mr. Marceau, Ms. Kirzner-Roberts and Mr. Robertson, if possible. Thank you.
Mr. Sandler: I’m happy to answer that first. Successful implementation would mean the use of the tools that are available to police, which would be a combination of those existing tools together with the new tools offered up by Bill C-9. Mr. Marceau made reference to the training that we do. We actually start off by articulating for police and prosecutors what existing tools are that are being underutilized, not only to address anti-Semitism but to address all forms of hate, because we do not confine ourselves to anti-Semitism.
We have already incorporated into our training — we just completed it recently for many of the Ontario Provincial Police officers — the anticipated Bill C-9 additions. We would train on Bill C-9 together with the existing tools and what is being underutilized, and a successful outcome for us is the utilization of the full range of tools, existing and contemplated by this legislation, in addressing hate across the nation.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Mr. Marceau?
Mr. Marceau: Three things. First, we would like to see more charges laid. Second, we would like to see fewer charges dropped.
And I will go a bit further. As you know, senator, in the criminal justice system, there is the use of diversion, which, for certain infractions, is a way to avoid going through the criminal law route. There are some infractions that diversions cannot be used for, for example, domestic violence. I would suggest to you and this committee that if someone is found guilty of a hate-motivated crime, diversion should not be allowed as a way of dealing with the crime. We think that, like domestic violence and a few others, if you are motivated by hate, diversion should not be considered in those cases.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Ms. Kirzner-Roberts?
Ms. Kirzner-Roberts: We would like to see, as a result of this bill, more thorough and careful hate investigations. We would like to see more arrests, more charges laid, and we would like to see stronger sentences that send a stronger message of denunciation and have a stronger effect of deterrence for potential hate criminals.
We would also like to see — as with other very specialized areas of law, for example, domestic violence, violence against women and sexual violence — the kind of specialization happening in the field of hate crimes that we’ve seen for those other specialized fields that relate to vulnerable communities.
We would like to see a mass rollout of education for front-line officers once this bill is adopted so they can understand how to implement and use these new tools, but we would also like to see more specialization.
Right now, in a few big cities, they have specialized hate crime units — in Ottawa, in Toronto, in Montreal — but outside of a few key cities, these don’t exist. In fact, it’s very difficult to even find an officer who understands the parameters of the law as it stands now. It is often hard to find a prosecutor. If the law is changed, that problem will be magnified. We would really like to see the growth of specialized units in justice ministries as well as in police so that once front-line officers make an arrest or receive a complaint, they are able to pass it to experts.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Mr. Robertson: I’ll briefly echo the sentiments of my colleagues. Successful implementation of Bill C-9 will result in more charges being laid, specifically charges related to these novel provisions contained within Bill C-9, such as the wilful promotion of hatred using Nazi iconography or using the symbols of listed terrorist entities.
But, Senator Arnot, true success would be measured in more than just the laying of charges or in successful prosecutions. It will be measured in a reduction of hate across the country — anti-Semitism, racism and all forms of bigotry. That’s why we’re here today. That’s why this was brought forward, and that’s what a true measure of success will look like.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Ince: Thank you all for being great witnesses. My question will be to anyone who would like to answer. Do you believe the bill adequately addresses the real-world threats facing Jewish communities, particularly around places of worship and community institutions?
Mr. Robertson: As some of my colleagues have alluded, this bill is imperfect, and it’s just a start. As I suggested in my opening, this bill will not get at the root causes which are allowing hate to manifest across the country. Bill C-9 is a response to hatred in the sense that it criminalizes hateful conduct. To be blunt, no, this will not cure all the issues we have with hate, specifically hate targeting our institutions. But we have come to a place as a society where we need to identify specifically those who are intimidating or obstructing the lawful access to our vulnerable institutions.
In that sense, yes, this will provide much-needed protections, but, no, it won’t get at the root causes of hate. What B’nai Brith Canada has been advocating for, in addition to these amendments to the Criminal Code, is help to protect our institutions. As a society, we need to devote attention to the endemic of hate which is plaguing our country.
To summarize, yes, there are much-needed protections specifically for our institutions, specifically the section related to intimidation and obstruction, but, no, this is not a cure-all. More must be done. This must be a starting point.
Mr. Sandler: Yes, I will echo what Mr. Robertson said and say, as well, as this committee recognized in its recommendations in its study on anti-Semitism, that the criminal law is merely one tool to address these issues. I have been a strong proponent, as have the people on this panel, for the use of “bubble zone” legislation at the municipal and provincial levels. Those aren’t intended to be punitive. Those are intended to be preventive — to prevent the intimidation and harassment before it takes place. You have made a recommendation to that effect. I strongly support that.
The criminal law is but one tool. Education is another, and bubble legislation is another, to address the endemic that we are dealing with.
[Translation]
Mr. Marceau: Philosopher Albert Camus said, “To name things wrongly is to add to the world’s misery.”
[English]
By not identifying the sources of this radicalization and of this hate, whether it comes from the far right or the far left or, unfortunately, from some segments of the Muslim community that have Islamist — I am not saying Muslim — radical thought, we will not get to the bottom of it.
We need to identify the sources. We need to name them, and we need to tailor each solution to the sources that are on the record. It is up to parliamentarians, such as yourselves, to really take up that fight because whatever starts with the Jews never ends with the Jews. If we are the primary targets now, we are not the only ones. The 2SLGBTQI+ is a target of hate. The Muslim community is a target of hate. The Sikh community, the Hindu community, the Black community — so many of them are targets of hate, and they all deserve to have the support of Parliament and of this committee.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for being with us today.
I am trying to understand a bit better the mechanics of this proposed legislation. I have two main questions to ask of you because I think you have spent a lot of time figuring out how you feel it needs to operate.
First, how do you feel about “No proceeding shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Attorney General”?
The second question is what we have been discussing on the use of regulations as a way of updating terrorism and hate symbols. I can see some real practical problems with that as a model, but I would be very interested in your assessment of those two parts of the bill. I have a much longer list, but we will start there.
Mr. Sandler: I can address both of those briefly. For many years, I have opposed the removal of the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent. I have done that notwithstanding my frustration at the bureaucracy around obtaining the Attorney General’s consent and, at times, the lack of will of certain Attorneys General about giving the consent to crimes involving hate propaganda or hate promotion.
But I see the cure as worse than the disease because what I am concerned about is if you remove the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent, then you will see a series of frivolous, vexatious, politically motivated private prosecutions laid under this legislation.
The Attorney General’s consent was introduced — and I’m really dating myself because I go back to the beginning of time — as a measure to prevent that kind of misuse of these provisions. I suggested at the House that either the consent requirement be retained or, alternatively, that it only be removed for police-laid charges and not for privately laid charges because there is the potential mischief.
In relation to the second issue, I oppose the introduction of regulations to decide which symbols are criminal and which symbols are not. I will tell you why. There is not really a lot new in the new offence of wilful promotion by the display of symbols. Right now, under wilful promotion of hatred or under public incitement of hatred, as you heard from another presenter, one can investigate and prosecute based upon a combination of words spoken, deeds done and symbols used. Police do this all the time in the context of proving intent, for example, in gang activities. The tattoos that gang members wear, the symbology used, are often used to prove intent. There is nothing new in this regard.
Under this legislation, though, the design is to highlight the importance of focusing on symbols. It is intended to send a message to police: Don’t forget symbols as a significant part of the wilful promotion of hatred.
So I do not see the answer in trying to legislate which symbols apply, because police will still have to apply investigative techniques to determine which symbols are truly evidence of wilful promotion of hatred and which symbols are not. We’re going to try to assist them at the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police through some guidance, manuals, part of the training that we will be doing, but I do not see the solution in regulation. It is too limiting. It is too cumbersome. It really divorces police from what they should be doing: relying upon expert evidence when needed and relying upon their investigative techniques.
Senator K. Wells: I will start with my questions to Mr. Marceau and Mr. Sandler. Some communities for many years, perhaps decades, have been asking the government to remove what is colloquially known as the good-faith religious defence from the Criminal Code under the auspices that religion should not be used as a justification for promoting hate.
So I am wondering about your opinions on Bill C-9 in its current form, with the inclusion, as we saw at the House of Commons, of “for greater certainty” amendments. Do you feel that that is necessary or appropriate, the way that the legislation stands, or do you feel that, as we have heard from some individuals and groups, it will contribute to criminalizing religious expression?
Mr. Sandler: So this is a very interesting issue that was raised before the House of Commons. I will answer you in the way that I did at the time. The Supreme Court of Canada in Keegstra made it very clear that the four affirmative defences that are set out in the Criminal Code were put there out of an abundance of caution to signal that it is only the most extreme forms of speech that will be criminalized. But the court also said it would be rare that these defences, including the religious exemption, could ever apply because if you meet the threshold of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that someone has wilfully promoted hatred — as those terms have been defined — against an identifiable group, it is virtually impossible to conceive of a situation where someone, in good faith, can be expressing an opinion on a religious topic. There has never been a case where that defence has successfully been invoked — not one.
From my perspective, for practical reasons, there is no difference whether the provision is there or the provision is not there. But it has been misinterpreted in some circles on both sides of this debate. On one side, it has been misinterpreted to say this immunizes hate-mongers from criminal liability if they frame their hate in terms of religion. It does nothing of the sort. On the other side of the argument, it has been argued that it prevents or inhibits or unduly restricts freedom of religion; it does nothing of the sort.
In my respectful view, the compromise that was struck in the House of Commons is the correct compromise, which is you remove the provision to prevent its misuse or misinterpretation, but you couple it with the clarification note that is intended to alleviate any concerns about it being overly broad.
Mr. Marceau: I will simply add that the clarification note is a suggestion that we made, and it took me back to when I was myself a legislator, going back to the debate over same-sex marriage, where churches, mosques and different religious institutions were fearful that their traditional definition of marriage that they held would be under attack. I suggested at the time — it was the only amendment that was adopted with the bill to legalize same-sex marriage across the country.
I think that taking out the religious exemption defence and, at the same time, adding that clarification is signal enough of the desire of Parliament that religious freedom is an important component of Canadian life, protected under the Charter and under different pieces of legislation. All the misconceptions that are out there, hopefully, will be tamed or forgotten. Thank you.
The Chair: Could you follow that up with — this is my question — what you would see as the advantages and disadvantages of the approach in terms of the bill rather than being added to the code, based on your previous answer?
Mr. Marceau: I did not understand the question. I apologize.
The Chair: The clarification clause — it is included in Bill C-9, but it is not in the Criminal Code. What would you see as the advantages or disadvantages of that?
Mr. Marceau: If it is included in Bill C-9, then it is legislation and has the force of law. To me, that clarifies the will and the intent of Parliament. Whenever this issue will come up, when lawyers — Crown prosecutors and defence — look at the situation, that will have to be taken into consideration, and the will of Parliament has to be taken into account in any decision of a court of law.
Mr. Sandler: I would add to that to say that the clarification is intended to be utilized in circumstances where there is a challenge to the legislation or the use of the legislation. The clarification would be used as an interpretive guide to address whether or not the legislation is Charter-compliant by removing the defence. In my view — and I know the Department of Justice has given a view on this with which I agree — that the section will survive constitutional scrutiny, aided by the existence of the clarification clause.
The Chair: Thank you for that answer. We may have to follow up for clarification if needed.
Senator McPhedran: Knowing how thorough you are in your advocacy — you all have been monitoring the presentations that we heard earlier today — could you speak to the concerns, please, about the balance between freedom of expression and freedom of action. They were very articulate in their concerns. I would appreciate your response on that, anyone who wants to jump in.
Mr. Robertson: Thank you. One of the things that is important here is to understand that our freedoms are not absolute and that it is not novel for legislation to potentially curtail freedoms. We have a legal test for this, section 1, the Oakes test. It is my personal opinion and the opinion of my organization — and I’m sure some of my other panellists would feel the same way — that some of the potential infringements on freedom of expression, such as related to the wilful promotion of hatred using Nazi iconography or the symbols of designated terrorist entities or your inability to obstruct or interfere with someone’s lawful access, really are not controversial. As I said in my opening, these are not controversial amendments. So there is the proper balance — and I’m sorry, senator, if this was not the answer you were looking for — between our freedoms and action here to prevent hatred, and that balance is struck by Bill C-9.
Mr. Sandler: If you look at each of the provisions introduced in Bill C-9, in my view — and I have been on the same side as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and I have been opposed to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, including in the Supreme Court of Canada on the hate propaganda sections when they were originally litigated — this piece of legislation actually is not a close call. It is pretty modest. The reason I say that is if you look at, first of all, the intimidation and obstruction sections, they have imposed a double specific intent on the intimidation section that takes away any concerns about its misuse in the way that was described in an earlier presentation. The specific intent is going to be very difficult to prove, and these sections will be used only in the clearest of cases if they are correctly applied.
The creation of a new hate offence creates no constitutional issues because, first, the prosecution has to prove that a conventional offence has been committed, and it’s only then that you go to the additional element that it is motivated by hate, implying the highest standard that has already been constitutionally affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Keegstra case.
When you look at wilful promotion of hatred through the display of symbols, again, wilful promotion of hatred has already survived a constitutional challenge, so this is simply identifying another means by which wilful promotion of hatred can take place.
For me, I actually see that the civil libertarian arguments on this legislation are not strong arguments for those reasons.
The Chair: Thank you.
That brings us to the end of this panel. I want to extend our appreciation to all of you for your testimonies. If we want to have a follow-up on that question that I didn’t quite ask as fulsomely as I would have liked, are you okay if we send that to you? Thank you so much.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimony will be very helpful as we continue our deliberations.
Senators, I will introduce our final panel of the day. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes each. This will be followed by questions from the senators.
With us by video conference, from the World Sikh Organization of Canada, is Balpreet Singh, Legal Counsel. With us in person, from the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, we welcome Justin Yuen, Lawyer. Also with us in person, from Canadian Hindus for Harmony and Vishwa Jain Sangathan Canada, please welcome Vijaykumar Jain, Director.
I invite Mr. Singh to make his presentation.
Balpreet Singh, Legal Counsel, World Sikh Organization of Canada: Good afternoon. My name is Balpreet Singh. I am Legal Counsel with the World Sikh Organization of Canada, or WSO.
I’ll jump right to it. Our concern is that portions of Bill C-9 risk undermining lawful political expression, peaceful protest and religious freedom, particularly in the context of ongoing Indian foreign interference and transnational oppression targeting Sikhs in Canada.
One of the most important things this committee should understand is that Bill C-9 has already become the subject of a widespread Indian disinformation campaign targeting Sikhs in Canada.
Major Indian media outlets have already falsely claimed Bill C-9 was introduced to crack down on support for Khalistan, which is a sovereign Sikh state, and ban the display of Khalistan flags in Canada. I’ll read you some examples. The New Indian Express reported with the headline “Canada tightens laws against hate symbols, Khalistan-linked flags in focus”; News18, another prominent platform: “Canada Passes Anti-Hate Act; Indo-Canadians Hail Long-Overdue Move Against Khalistani Extremism”; and a third: “New Anti-Hate Bill In Canada Will Curb Pro-Khalistan Imagery . . . .”
These reports falsely suggest that Canada introduced Bill C-9 under pressure from India to target Khalistan advocacy in order to mend diplomatic ties with India, and has, in effect, banned the display of Khalistan flags or pro-Khalistan imagery. The goal of this disinformation is to create fear and suspicion around pro‑Khalistan advocacy in Canada and in the community.
Indian disinformation is not unusual or unexpected. I will quote from the final report of the Foreign Interference Commission, which warned that:
India also uses disinformation as a key form of foreign interference against Canada, a tactic likely to be used more often in the future.
And:
India’s activities primarily target the approximately 800,000 members of the Sikh diaspora in Canada and aim to promote a pro-India and anti-Khalistan narrative. . . .
I will read another quote from the final report:
India continues to develop its cyber capabilities. CSIS assesses that India will likely seek to promote a pro-India and anti-Khalistan narrative in Canada using cognitive warfare techniques.
That context is important when considering Bill C-9. The chilling effect of Bill C-9 and the disinformation surrounding it have already been felt by my community.
On April 26 of this year, Sikhs had their annual Khalsa Day parade in Toronto. The organizers and the WSO received numerous inquiries from the Sikh community members asking whether Khalistan flags had become illegal under Bill C-9.
We also became aware of an incident at Nathan Phillips Square where a Toronto police officer reportedly advised members of the Sikh community present that Khalistan flags would not be permitted because Bill C-9 had now passed. Although this misunderstanding was eventually corrected, it demonstrates the confusion and fear that vague legislation, combined with foreign disinformation, can create.
A related concern is with respect to the proposed offence regarding symbols associated with listed entities. The language in Bill C-9 is vague and overly broad.
The khanda is the central Sikh emblem; it appears on the Nishan Sahib flag outside every Sikh gurdwara in Canada. It is used by Sikh charities and community organizations, et cetera. It is also used by some listed entities, which have used variations of the khanda in their imagery.
Bill C-9 provides little guidance regarding how police officers are expected to determine what symbols are “. . . associated with . . .” a listed entity, what degree of resemblance is sufficient and whether a symbol is being displayed for religious, cultural, political or whatever purposes.
Front-line officers should not be expected to make immediate determinations about complex religious and political symbolism during demonstrations or public events. This is particularly concerning given the increasing pressure generated by foreign disinformation portraying Sikh advocacy as extremism. Police officers themselves can be influenced by disinformation, and this may lead to erroneous judgments on what are classified as restricted symbols. The legislation risks encouraging enforcement first and legal analysis later, at the cost of individual freedoms. The result is a serious risk of arbitrary enforcement and a chilling effect on lawful expression.
The third concern we’d like to share is with respect to protests near places of worship and community spaces. We have seen Sikh community members peacefully protest outside locations hosting Indian consular camps, including community centres and places of worship temporarily being used for governmental or political functions.
Bill C-9 does not distinguish between protests targeting a religious community or worship activity and protests directed at political governmental activities located at a place that also functions as a place of worship. That distinction is important. A place of worship that is temporarily being used for political or consular functions should not automatically become insulated from peaceful protest. Without clear safeguards, there is a real risk that lawful demonstrations could be restricted simply because of where they occur.
In conclusion, I make the following recommendations to this committee: First, amend Bill C-9 to provide a closed and clearly defined list of prohibited symbols, established through transparent regulations and subject to regular review.
Second, remove or substantially narrow the provisions relating to a symbol “. . . associated with . . .” listed entities and a symbol that “. . . so nearly resembles . . .” such symbols.
Third, amend Bill C-9 to explicitly clarify that the legislation does not prohibit lawful protests directed at political, governmental and diplomatic activities occurring at places ordinarily used for worship or community purposes.
Finally, ensure enforcement is limited to situations involving genuine threats, violence, harassment or physical obstruction, assessed using objective standards.
Those are my submissions. I look forward to your comments and questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Singh. We will now go to Mr. Yuen.
Justin Yuen, Lawyer, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic: Good evening, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be back here before the committee. I am appearing this evening as a board member of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, or CSALC.
Canada is home to many different communities that have their own cultural heritage, which, together, form the diverse fibres which our country holds dear.
I am a Canadian-born Chinese to first-generation immigrant parents from Hong Kong. Professionally, I have been practising as a criminal defence lawyer in Toronto for the last 10 years. I am in a unique position to speak about Bill C-9’s proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.
Historically, the Chinese community has felt sustained anti-Asian sentiments. Most recently, the Asian community has felt disappointment and profound sadness in a leader of a country describing COVID-19 as the “kung flu.”
On one side of the coin, I identify as one of the minority communities that this bill aims to protect; on the other side, I have dedicated my professional career to defending vulnerable accused persons and ensuring that police conduct does not unlawfully infringe fundamental freedoms protected by both the Canadian Charter and international law.
On behalf of the CSALC, we oppose Bill C-9 due to concerns that it threatens fundamental freedoms and disproportionately harms the marginalized communities it is intended to protect.
I have three broad concerns to make about the proposed legislation:
First, the proposed hybrid offence of intimidation seeks to criminalize conduct intended to provoke a state of fear in a person or impede their access to certain protected places. CSALC opposes this new offence. The vague threshold could lead to subjective and arbitrary enforcement by the police, who have a history of disproportionately surveilling and targeting racialized and marginalized groups that protest state action.
Further, the vague wording of the new offence could lead to the suppression of constitutionally protected rights of expression and peaceful assembly at a broad list of buildings and structures where marginalized communities regularly meet.
The second concern is about the reduced institutional oversight. The proposed bill eliminates the long-standing requirement that the Attorney General must consent to hate propaganda charges, which is typically requested by a Crown attorney who is well versed in the law and binding decisions made by various levels of the court.
News alerts of individuals being charged are delivered at an increasingly efficient rate. An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court of public opinion can be devastating. Even when the individual is acquitted, the damage has been done.
The Crown prosecutor, in seeking the Attorney General’s consent, considers whether on that case they actually have a reasonable prospect of conviction, compared with the police’s lower standard of reasonable and probable grounds. The removal of the Attorney General’s consent could lead to an increased risk of arbitrary, inconsistent and selective conduct from both the police and vexatious private prosecutions.
The third concern is about excessive penalties and overburden to the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system, as it stands, is already overburdened. Both the defence and Crown are having a difficult time processing increasingly large amounts of digital disclosure in order to effectively resolve matters, either by way of guilty pleas, alternative measures or withdrawals.
In preparation for speaking to this committee, I spoke with numerous Crown attorneys. I spoke with a senior Crown attorney — who is a team lead at the amalgamated Toronto courthouse — and we both questioned why. There is already an abundance of offences within the Criminal Code that can deal with the issues this bill seeks to address: the offences of uttering threats, mischief, obstruction, conspiracy to commit an indictable offence, just to name a few.
In Toronto, if the offence is hate-motivated, the Toronto Police Service will trigger it at the time of the arrest. At the very outset, the Crown attorney’s scope database will have the matter highlighted as a potentially hate-motivated crime. Upon a conviction, the Crown can rely on the offence being hate-motivated as an aggravating feature in asking for an increased sentence. There are already mechanisms in place to address the concerns of this bill.
Bill C-9 represents a significant expansion of state power, specifically in police power. In the name of combatting hate, the bill allows criminalizing vague forms of expression and peaceful assembly. The effect of this bill would lead to reducing oversight of police conduct while broadening their scope of arrest, worsening systemic inequities, all while undermining constitutional commitments to freedoms and rights protected by the Charter.
Reducing hate and reducing crime can be more effectively accomplished by education. Educate and celebrate the ways in which Canada is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. In a world where misinformation is so easily spread through viral social posts, we should find ways to educate about diversity so that all members of the community feel safe, welcomed and accepted.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to speaking to the members individually.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Yuen.
We will now go to Mr. Jain.
Vijaykumar Jain, Director, Canadian Hindus for Harmony and Vishwa Jain Sangathan Canada: Thank you. Madam Chair and members of the Human Rights Committee, good afternoon. I am Vijaykumar Jain, Director of Canadian Hindus for Harmony and Vishwa Jain Sangathan Canada, and I am speaking on behalf of the Hindu and Jain communities in Canada.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present our case in the study of Bill C-9. We welcome the usage of official neutral terminology such as “any identifiable group” in the proposed section 319(2.2), as the bill intends to address hate against all identifiable groups, including Hindus.
In our previous submission and presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we supported Bill C-9, and we request the Senate committee to pass this bill. We explained with evidence that the word “swastika” and the symbol are very auspicious to Jain, Hindu and Buddhist communities, and it has no association with Nazis or anti-Semitism.
We thank the Justice Committee for including our recommendation in subsequent amendments to the draft and removing the word “swastika” from hate references in this bill. However, our other recommendations were not included; namely, the proposed paragraph 319(2.2)(c) is very ambiguous. It states:
. . . a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b) that it is likely to be a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b).
This inclusion of 319(2.2)(c) introduces several potential risks: the risk of misidentification by law enforcement authorities or members of the public, particularly among individuals unfamiliar with Jain, Hindu and Buddhist communities; the potential chilling effect on the exercise of religious and cultural expression, including a reluctance of temples and community institutions to display a sacred symbol that has been used for centuries; exposure to unwarranted investigation and scrutiny arising from misunderstanding or lack of cultural awareness, even in circumstances where no charges are ultimately pursued; the possibility of inconsistent or uneven enforcement across provinces and law enforcement jurisdictions, leading to variability in application and legal uncertainty; adverse impact on cultural and religious life, including festivals, publications, signage and educational materials, further compounded by the ambiguous phrasing “. . . so nearly resembles . . .,” which, in the absence of statutory clarification, may give rise to interpretive uncertainty.
We recommend removing the proposed subsection 319(2.2)(c) from this bill.
Further, we understand the bill intends to cover exceptions for the usage of swastikas for religious purposes through defences under subsections 319(2.2) and 319(3.2)(a). However, this generic wording is not sufficient enough, considering the widespread conflation of the word “swastika” and lack of awareness. We request to add explicit exceptions, as done in the legislation in the Victoria State in Australia, as below:
The exceptions for the cultural and historical significance of the Swastika to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and other faith communities remain unchanged.
It is not against the law to publicly display the Swastika (which may be mistaken for the Nazi Hakenkreuz symbol) for genuine cultural or religious purposes.
Apart from our concerns with Bill C-9, which we fully supported in the previous committee, we did raise concerns about not recognizing the word “Hinduphobia” or anti-Hindu hatred in this bill. As mentioned above, we welcome the official neutral language in this bill, as the bill intends to address hatred against all identifiable groups. When the communication of this bill goes out, it does mention that the bill is to address anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and homophobia. However, it excludes the word “Hinduphobia.”
There has been rising Hinduphobia in Canada in the last decade, which is evident from Hindu temple vandalism sprees, attacks and assaults on Hindu businesses and people, distasteful posters against Hindus and very hateful social media posts against Hindu deities.
Our e-petition e-4507, recognizing and addressing Hinduphobia, in the House of Commons has received more than 25,000 signatures. While such a high number of Hinduphobic incidents are happening, we find the omission of the word “Hinduphobia” in media communications on this bill to be troublesome when we say that the bill is intended to address hate against all communities. Through such communications, our community feels that hatred against the Hindu community is completely ignored. We recommend including the word “Hinduphobia” whenever you make such communications.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am open for questions now.
The Chair: Thank you for your statements. We will now move to questions from senators.
Senator Bernard: Mr. Yuen, you talked about education. You sounded as if you were proposing that education may be the best way forward as opposed to legislation around hate. Could you expand more on that? What would you see included in a program that would focus on education? Who would it be aimed at? Could you see education in addition to the bill if the bill were to pass?
Mr. Yuen: I do a substantial amount of youth criminal justice work in Toronto. We look at the involvement of young persons, for example, and talk about police arrests and prevention of crime. In Toronto, there is a new youth justice program where the accused young persons are enrolled in a justice centre, which is a substantial education and counselling program that is specific to the offence that they are alleged to have committed. The purpose of that is to demonstrate and show them different ways to deal with what might have led to them leaning toward criminality.
There are alternative ways to provide education and ways out of criminal behaviour. Specifically, we are dealing with hate crimes or understanding of different cultures. For example, CSALC has education programs they offer to the community to let them know and spread awareness of what CSALC is, what they do and the groups and communities they assist. I know a lot of other Legal Aid clinics have similar outreach programs in their neighbourhoods. So there are ways for diverse groups to demonstrate to the public their cultural significance and heritage and what they are about in a way that can educate instead of penalizing in a criminal fashion.
Senator Bernard: If this bill were to pass, what role would you see education playing after it came into force?
Mr. Yuen: It seems like the bill, respectfully, is about broadening the scope of police action. So are we talking about the police educating about what hate crimes are or the public’s education of what hate crimes are? I think there are two separate ways about it. I’m trying to figure out what your question is targeting.
Senator Bernard: What I’m asking you is what you would recommend. Under that broad umbrella of education, if this bill were coming into force, what would you recommend? What do you think would be important for Canadians?
Mr. Yuen: I think it is important for Canadians to celebrate the diverse cultures that form what it means to be Canadian and the acceptance of different groups. I’m not sure how to answer how to educate about the bill, to be honest.
When criminal laws are passed, it does two things: One, it deters people from committing crimes and offences; and, two, it punishes people committing those offences. At the core of it, like I mentioned in my opening, a lot of the offences are already criminal offences. They are already illegal conduct that is enforceable already. I think adding an additional umbrella of hate crimes seeks to expand that scope in, frankly, a confusing manner to the police, the Crown and defence who are enacting and seeing these laws being put into practice, what happens with it.
The Chair: Mr. Yuen, just for clarification, in your opening statement, you alluded to the importance of the AG’s consent being put back in the legislation, or not having it at all. Could you clarify that?
Mr. Yuen: There should be the Attorney General’s consent.
The Chair: It is already in the legislation.
Mr. Yuen: Correct. It should remain, yes.
The Chair: Okay. All right. I wasn’t sure.
Mr. Yuen: I apologize. It should be.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ince: Thank you so much. This question will be for anyone who wishes to answer it. Racialized communities often face hate incidents in disproportionate enforcement. How do you assess Bill C-9’s likely impact on these dual concerns?
Mr. Jain: Thank you. My community — Hindu and Jain communities — primarily in the last few years, we have seen a spike in a lot of attacks on our temples; a vandalism spree happening. Specifically, after October 7, as the Jewish community was targeted, the Hindu community was equally targeted in the last couple of years.
The passage of Bill C-9 will give additional tools to law enforcement to put a deterrent to protesters at our places of worship. It will add hate-mongering, which is going on against our communities. That will give a deterrence message to those protesters. We feel that Bill C-9 will help my community, which is a minority community. Yes, it will help them.
Mr. Singh: I would like to say a couple of words on this as well. I think all of us can agree that hate is something that needs to be opposed in Canada. We have to find better ways. We are seeing a rise in hate. Our organization released an anti-Sikh hate report last month. The findings were pretty shocking. It found that 65% of respondents across Canada had experienced anti-Sikh hate.
What we are concerned with is that where police are given unclear guidelines, where there are activists, where there are protests, are we going to end up with people being stifled? You can say that, well, you know, police may stop you or charge you, and that charge will go nowhere because it wasn’t based on the legislation and can’t be proven. But it is a negative effect; no one wants to be approached by the police.
For example, someone carrying a Khalistan flag at the event was being told by Toronto Police, “You can’t have this.” This was a mistake, but it shows that police often do not have the time to understand these things in depth. And when they are trying to decide what a hate symbol is, how are they supposed to — the range of symbols they are coming across, sometimes they are so similar you cannot figure it out.
We think there needs to be an established catalogue or some sort of a list of these symbols saying these are the ones that you should know and these are banned. If you leave it to the police, you are going to end up with a real mess.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: You were here, I think, for the earlier discussion, so I would like to revisit the questions I asked. They are really about the mechanics of this bill, appreciating that some of you have taken the position that the bill should not go forward.
The main question I have is about the balance between freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If this bill were not to proceed, would you each be of the opinion that there is an adequate balance already? Are you also of the opinion that there is adequate protection already from established case law and practices around responding to incidents of hate in Canadian society?
Mr. Yuen: I’m happy to address this point first. In preparing to speak, I saw comments made by the Honourable Kristopher Wells made on April 14, 2026.
Senator McPhedran: Sponsor of the bill.
Mr. Yuen: In it, you mentioned a few recent examples that demonstrate the persistent and pernicious nature of hate. Obviously, I’m not saying that hate should be accepted. It is something that is prevalent in our community. But he specifically mentions:
. . . two men yelled homophobic slurs and assaulted a victim walking on the street in a community neighbourhood that should have been a refuge of inclusivity and safety. . . .
Assault — that’s a criminal offence. They could be charged with assault. If it is proven that it was hate-based, it is a significant aggravating factor in sentencing.
Further to it, vandalism and the next example, mischief — that’s a criminal offence.
In another disturbing case last fall, an individual in Newmarket, Ontario, threatened to tamper with gas lines to ignite their Muslim neighbours’ home and kill everyone inside . . . .
Igniting gas lines — arson and attempted arson. Threats to “. . . kill everyone inside . . .,” attempted murder. There are existing criminal offences that deal with these examples.
The last one:
That individual also planned to target a local mosque. Jewish communities also continue to be targeted by anti-Semitic and hateful acts, with multiple synagogues being shot at in the Toronto area last month.
Discharge of a firearm, reckless firearm and firearm possession — those are all charges that deal with that offence. If it is proven that it was hate-motivated, it could be aggravating on sentencing. Some of those offences have mandatory minimums.
There are systems put in place. Those people, if arrested, could be charged and could be prosecuted, and if convicted, and if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is an aggravating feature, that it’s a hate crime, they will receive an increased sentence. It is my position that there are adequate protections already in place to address those issues. That’s how, at the core of it, the criminal justice system, as it stands right now, operates.
Senator McPhedran: Would other witnesses like to respond, please?
Mr. Jain: I differ in opinion there because the good part about this bill is that it does have “bubble zone” provisions. Some people call it a bubble zone where you cannot protest; you are protecting places of worship, primarily community centres.
What we have seen in the recent few years, when we visited temples, we saw that there were protesters outside temples, and I had calls from many community members asking if it is safe to visit the temple today. That question was devastating. There is no safeguard right now, so this bill provides that safeguard. So, the bill should be passed to protect our places of worship and to give some kind of protection to our communities who do want to visit temples, synagogues and other places.
Mr. Singh: We saw in our anti-Sikh hate report that 70% of people who experienced anti-Sikh hate said they did not bother reporting it because they felt it wouldn’t serve any purpose.
When we’re looking at prosecutions, for example, in Windsor, there was a sentencing that took place in April or March for the snatching of a turban. The conviction was for assault. Hate did not play any role in it.
We have seen, for example, an apparently random murder in Edmonton at the end of March of a Sikh man, for absolutely no reason. Police came out and said, no, hate had nothing to do with it. So, we aren’t seeing the existing hate provisions being used. Adding these, we feel, might, in fact, once again serve a negative purpose in giving police, without proper direction, the ability to clamp down on activities which are otherwise legal. It will have a chilling effect. Like I said, we have already seen misunderstandings around what Bill C-9 would actually mean.
Senator Arnold: Thank you very much. I just wanted to confirm, Mr. Singh, that it is sort of fake news, as far as your flag being illegal or seen as a terrorist symbol. Correct?
Mr. Singh: Yes, 100%. Khalistan is a sovereignty movement. You can agree or disagree with it, but having a Khalistan flag — everyone agrees that it is completely legal. There is no basis for saying that it’s not.
Senator Arnold: Thank you. We have heard today a lot of talk around data and the importance of being able to collect good data. What isn’t measured doesn’t get improved. The point was made that we would need to have these stand-alone hate crime units in order to be able to collect proper data, like we do around drugs or domestic violence. I would like to hear from the witnesses their thoughts on that and if this is needed within the Criminal Code so that this kind of real data can be collected.
Mr. Jain: Yes. But then how much data do we need? After October 7, in the last few years, data is already available that points to the rise in hate crime in Canada. As some people mentioned here, my community is very much self-censoring. They do not report many of the issues. Many issues have not been reported.
Yes, we can bring the tools for collecting the data, but are people coming forward to report the issues? It is not happening because they see that nothing is changing. They see that the protests are happening outside the temples. They see hate crimes against our communities. In the town I come from, Brampton, we see very ugly posters against our communities. On social media, there are very demeaning and hateful, derogatory posts against our deities and our way of living. We are not bothering anybody, but many hateful messages are going on against our deities.
When our family members and kids see those messages, it is very sad, actually. What we see is what we ask the Parliament: Pass a bill that will give a deterrent message to perpetrators. That’s how we look at this bill.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
Mr. Yuen: I’m not sure whether, from an on-the-ground standpoint, there is data collected by Crown prosecutors and how many cases the police trigger as a hate crime and how many they act on and are successful. I can’t answer. I’m not sure.
Mr. Singh: I would suggest that having police forces and specific members of the police force specifically trained to deal with hate crime is probably a positive. Like I said, we aren’t seeing the tools, in our opinion, being effectively used. Further training and education on what hate crimes actually are, are important.
Bill C-9 is giving way too much leeway to the average officer on the ground to say, “Hey, is this a hate symbol? Well, I think I saw that on the news.” And disinformation is, once again, quoting the Foreign Interference Commission, an “. . . existential threat . . .” to Canadian democracy. It is just as easy to access the Toronto Star as it is to access a disinformation outlet, if not even more so because there is no “paywall.” That filters even into the police forces, so there is a real danger.
Senator Arnold: Thank you.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you all for being here. I just want to re-emphasize and clarify what Senator Senior said about the Attorney General’s consent. As we saw, there may be some confusion out there in the public because it was taken out of the initial bill and then restored through amendments. In fact, it was further added, for example, for the public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols. That safeguard, as some see it, is there in this current bill.
Likewise, this isn’t bubble zone legislation in Bill C-9, which is what we’re seeing in some municipalities. I think we heard the minister say it is a good step and that they can be conjoined together with Bill C-9 to provide that safety in accessing certain public spaces. Of course, the powers are different at a municipal level and at a bylaw level and at the Criminal Code level.
My question, then, centres around this: If Bill C-in its current form is not the answer that you see, what gaps exist in our current laws that are a factor leading to the rise in hate crimes, particularly concerning young people? The available evidence shows young people are overrepresented amongst the accused of hate crimes in Canada.
If not Bill C-9, what other legislative tools are you seeing that the government can introduce to address the rising problem of hate that we seem to all agree upon in Canada?
Mr. Jain: Let’s say Bill C-9 doesn’t exist. This is the premise of this question. I see that lack of deterrence. I think our judiciary is failing us. On the previous panel, one example was given. Somebody was uttering a threat to put bombs in synagogues to kill as many Jewish people as possible. The person was finally charged and got only 60 days of house arrest. Is that a deterrent?
I will give you another example. Thirty years ago, Canada experienced the biggest terrorist attack on Canadian soil, and 280 Canadians were killed in that attack. How many people were charged? This is a question we should ask ourselves. We lack the deterrent. If somebody commits a crime, is our judiciary charging them enough so that nobody else even dreams of committing such a crime again? That is not happening.
That is the reason. Do people who are working at full-time jobs have time to come out on the street and utter threats against other Canadians? No. Nobody has that much time. However, some people are doing it because there is no deterrent. That’s what is failing us here.
Mr. Yuen: I can chime in on the question because you specifically asked about young people. There need to be ways to limit access to the internet for young people. The age requirements on YouTube and Instagram are insufficient. I recently worked on a file where there was a very young person, 13 years old, who was going through a very rough spot and went through a dark hole of the internet and ended up being counselled to essentially attempt to commit a mass murder. The RCMP was involved. INTERPOL was involved. They eventually arrested what the media termed — I don’t know if it is — a group of men in Germany who were counselling young people in Canada and the U.S. to commit murder.
You talk about young people and how they are getting involved and being exposed to all this hatred. Frankly, it’s what a lot of adults can’t control. We did not grow up having this. We had dial-up and cable. They have a mini computer in their pocket with unfettered access. Sometimes they are bored. They are not interested at school, or something is wrong. They go online, and it is instant euphoria, entertainment, bright lights. It is attractive to them, and it is where misinformation and hatred, oftentimes, unfortunately, attract the minds of young people.
I think if you’re talking about what if not Bill C-9, let’s address bills and ways to protect and limit internet access for young people.
Senator K. Wells: I think you can see that will be coming.
Mr. Yuen: I guess that answers the education aspect of a previous question.
The Chair: I will give Mr. Singh a minute if he would like to respond as well.
Mr. Singh: I have to concur that we are seeing the most vile type of hatred online, and we are seeing that young people are being indoctrinated.
In fact, disinformation, once again sourced from India around the Khalistan movement, is directed at far-right, xenophobic individuals here in Canada to tell them that Khalistan is actually a threat to Canada, that people supporting Khalistan are trying to create a separate state within Canada. I have had genuine calls from Canadians saying, “You will not take an inch of my land.” The question is, “Who has ever told you that anyone wanted to take it?” When you look at it, it is actually disinformation that is directed at Canada.
So we have to do something about disinformation targeting our young people, targeting our citizens. Right now, it is an open field. Anyone can target anyone in Canada, and it is having an impact.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ince: This question, again, is for everyone. Are there forms of hate and/or intimidation experienced by your communities that this bill does not adequately capture?
Mr. Singh: I will just say that the type of hate that we’re experiencing in terms of transnational oppression is real. We have had multiple Sikhs being targeted in Canada. We have had multiple murders. We have had a wave of extortions. That sort of hate that is directed from a foreign country is not covered at all by any of this.
I have spoken with Canadian authorities around transnational oppression, and the protections available are very thin. People are given duties to warn, which means there is an actual threat that you will be killed. You are not told where that threat is emanating from. You can take a guess. And then you are not given any protections. Often, these people are forced to basically live their lives.
This, in my opinion, is a type of hate. It is hate for people who support, once again, self-determination for the Sikh cause or who are Sikh activists, and there is absolutely nothing in this bill that covers that and, frankly, nothing anywhere that covers that.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Mr. Jain: I think the question is what more Bill C-9 should have. One of the previous panellists — I forgot their name — mentioned that the bill does include the clause of wilful promotion of hatred but does not include “wilful promotion of terror.” I will give an example here of something the bill does not include and which I recommend that you include. I will go back to my previous example.
Forty years ago, on Canadian soil, the largest terrorist attack happened, killing 280 Canadians. The entity that was responsible for that terrorist act of bombing an entire airplane was driven by an ideology, and there are people who are promoting that ideology even today. They are glorifying it. If we include the clause “wilful promotion of terror” in the same bill, I think that will give a deterrent to people who are glorifying those terrorist activities that happened 40 years ago.
Some of those are still happening even today. A few months back, Nancy Grewal, who was condemning this particular ideology, was killed. You may have heard of that in the news. This person was a Canadian lady and was killed just because she was condemning this particular terrorist ideology. So far, there has been no arrest on that.
The point I am trying to make here is that the bill is trying to address the hate, correct? The hate is coming from a terrorist ideology, whether it is Hamas doing those activities and killing Jewish people and then people glorifying Hamas here, and that’s what we are calling hate here, but at the end of the day, what is happening is a wilful promotion of terrorist activity. That is what the bill should expand to if we were to expand it.
Mr. Yuen: I don’t think I have anything to add.
The Chair: All right. I think those are all the questions the committee has for you today. Thank you so much for contributing to our review of Bill C-9.
On behalf of the committee, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. Your testimonies will be helpful as we continue to deliberate. Thank you to all the witnesses who came today. We certainly saw quite a few.
That concludes our meeting. Thanks, everyone.
(The committee adjourned.)