Criminal Code
Bill to Amend--Third Report of Human Rights Committee--Debate
June 3, 2026
Moved the adoption of the report.
She said: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to speak to the report on Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).
Bill C-9 amends the Criminal Code to address hate crimes. Specifically, Bill C-9 creates a new offence that applies when another offence is motivated by hatred; a new prohibition on promoting hatred through the display of certain terrorism and hate symbols; and new offences relating to intimidation, obstruction or interference with access to places of worship and certain other places.
The committee began its study on Bill C-9 on May 20, 2026. The committee held five meetings, heard from 56 witnesses and received 51 written briefs.
The Minister of Justice presented to the committee on the intent and purpose of the bill. Officials were present to answer questions during hearings and to advise the committee during clause-by-clause deliberations.
We heard from a diverse range of witnesses, including representatives from civil liberties organizations, police representatives, Indigenous organizations, faith communities, charitable organizations, academics and human rights organizations. The committee examined and considered proposed amendments during clause-by-clause consideration on Monday, June 1. During the process, four amendments and seven observations were adopted. I will outline each of them now.
First, the committee amended clause 4 of Bill C-9 to add the noose to the terrorism and hate symbols included in new section 319(2.2) of the Criminal Code. As with the other listed terrorism and hate symbols, this amendment makes it a criminal offence to wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group by displaying the noose in any public place.
Second, the committee amended clause 4 of Bill C-9 to add new section 319(2.4) to the Criminal Code, making it a criminal offence to wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous Peoples by condoning, denying or downplaying the Indian residential schools system.
A related amendment to Bill C-9 made coordinating amendments to the Criminal Code to provide that this new offence has similar defences and procedural protections to the existing offence of wilful promotion of anti-Semitism, which is section 319(2.1) of the Criminal Code.
Finally, the committee amended clause 6 of Bill C-9 to add an exception to new section 423.3 of the Criminal Code, which creates a new offence that would prohibit conduct that intentionally provokes a state of fear in someone in order to impede their access to a religious building or certain other places. The amendment clarifies that this offence does not apply to someone who is at such a place for the sole purpose of obtaining or communicating information.
I will now spend a few moments highlighting the seven observations that were adopted. They are grounded in the testimony heard by the committee during its study of Bill C-9 and are intended to reflect the evidence, concerns, perspectives and areas of consensus and disagreement presented to the committee by witnesses appearing before it.
To begin, we heard recurring testimony from a broad range of witnesses that the long-term effectiveness, fairness and public legitimacy of Bill C-9 may depend significantly on transparent implementation, meaningful public reporting, training and education and ongoing parliamentary oversight.
The committee therefore observes that implementation accountability, public reporting and periodic parliamentary review are essential to the long-term operation and public legitimacy of the provisions of Bill C-9.
Second, we heard from policing representatives, legal experts, community organizations and witnesses from affected communities that the effective implementation of Bill C-9 may depend significantly upon specialized hate crime expertise, dedicated investigative capacity, standardized training for law enforcement and prosecutors, community education, outreach, and coordinated approaches across Canadian jurisdictions.
We, therefore, observe that funding and strengthening specialized hate crime expertise and implementation capacity across federal, provincial and municipal institutions may be essential to the effective operation, fairness and long-term public legitimacy of Bill C-9 and broader efforts to address hatred directed toward vulnerable communities in Canada.
Third, the committee heard significant testimony from Indigenous witnesses that the current drafting of the bill may not fully reflect Indigenous understandings of sacred spaces, land-based spirituality, burial practices and residential-school-related harms.
The committee therefore observes that while Indigenous witnesses consistently framed these concerns not as opposition to the bill’s objectives, they are fundamental to recognition, inclusion, community safety and equal protection within the bill’s existing framework.
We also heard concerning testimony about the lack of consultation with Indigenous Peoples as part of this bill. The committee urges the government to consult Indigenous Peoples about measures to address hate crimes.
Next, the committee heard differing testimony respecting the proposed hate symbol provisions, including testimony relating to critical absences, drafting precision, interpretation, operational enforceability and cultural literacy. We, therefore, observe that many witnesses considered the importance of implementation guidance, prosecutorial screening, enhanced law enforcement training and cultural literacy to be essential to the practical operation and public confidence associated with the proposed hate symbol provisions.
The committee observes that hate symbols evolve over time and highlights the recommendation from several witnesses to establish an advisory body or other mechanism to evaluate hate symbols on an ongoing basis and recommend changes as needed.
The fifth observation pertains to protest rights, access offences and public confidence. We heard substantial testimony concerning the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between unlawful intimidation and constitutionally protected protest activity. We, therefore, observe that ensuring that the distinction between unlawful intimidation and lawful protest remains fundamental to the clear, objective and consistent application of this legislation in practice.
Next, we heard differing testimony respecting the repeal of the former good-faith religious opinion defence. We also heard repeated testimony from legal experts, policing representatives, equality-seeking organizations and government officials that the proposed offences continue to require a high threshold involving wilful promotion of hatred and do not criminalize lawful religious belief, worship, sermons, theological discourse or good‑faith expression that does not meet that significant legal threshold.
The committee observes that continued public communication, legal education and clear government explanations respecting the distinction between lawful religious expression and criminal hate propaganda are essential.
Finally, we repeatedly heard testimony that many communities view Bill C-9 as both an important protective measure against hate and a potential source of uneven or discriminatory enforcement. The committee therefore observes that fairness, transparency, accountability and equitable implementation are crucial to the long-term legitimacy and public confidence associated with Bill C-9.
In closing, I would like to thank the senators and their staff for all of their hard work throughout our study of the bill. They are Senators Arnold, Arnot, Ataullahjan, Bernard, Ince, Karetak-Lindell, LaBoucane-Benson, Martin, McPhedran, Moncion, Osler, K. Wells and D. Wells. Thanks, in particular, for attending the meetings during the non-sitting week.
Thank you to the Library of Parliament analysts Madalina Chesoi and Robert Mason; the clerk, Caroline Woodward; and other committee staff for their dedicated efforts throughout the study. I also want to thank the witnesses who invested time and effort to share their expertise and perspectives on this bill.
Thank you, meegwetch.
Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, concerning Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), which was adopted with amendments and observations following the committee’s clause-by-clause consideration on June 1, 2026.
During consideration of clause 4, Senator Bernard moved an amendment to page 2, line 5. In the course of debate on that amendment, I moved a subamendment intended to clarify the list of hate symbols captured in that provision. Following the meeting, it was brought to our attention that the written version of the subamendment distributed to members did not reflect the wording that was discussed during debate and adopted by the committee.
The committee’s deliberations and decision clearly provided for the inclusion of SS bolts, a well-known Nazi symbol that appears in the original version of the bill in English.
As members will recall, this subamendment reflects the significant body of evidence the committee heard throughout its study of the bill.
Witnesses emphasized the importance of ensuring that the legislation clearly captures commonly recognized hate symbols, including Nazi imagery, such as the SS bolts. The wording that was debated and agreed to by the committee was intended to give effect to that evidence.
For clarity, the English version should have read:
That the motion in amendment be amended by replacing the text in paragraph (a) with “also known as the SS bolts, or a noose; or” and by deleting paragraph (b).
After consultation with the committee clerks and the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, I am advised that the most appropriate way to ensure that the record accurately reflects the committee’s intent and decision is to amend the committee report now before us.
This correction does not alter the substance of the committee’s decision; rather, it ensures that the English version properly reflects what was debated, agreed to and intended by the members of the committee during clause-by-clause consideration.
I am further advised that the French version accurately reflects the committee’s intent and, therefore, requires no correction.
I ask for your support in adopting this correction so that the report with the amendments and observations on Bill C-9 accurately reflects the will of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
