Criminal Code

Honourable senators, at intergroup and interpersonal levels in residential schools and society in general, the one-size-fits-all, imperialist cultural ways were to gradually displace and replace First Nations’ ways of being and knowing. It left no area of my social life or individual experience untainted.

The punitive, violent and oppressive character of the residential school I attended was directly responsible for the personal, familial, cultural and economic upheaval in our lives, families and kinship.

And I continue to witness residential school and intergenerational trauma first-hand today. Young people, as well as their parents, have approached me. Young people have requested that the issue of intergenerational trauma be brought forward now so they and other Canadians can understand how trauma is passed down and the impacts on their lives.

We know that First Nations are creative, social and collective agents who experienced, interpreted and adapted to social life in residential schools and on reserves in many different ways and for many different reasons. Former students who experienced the violence spoke to their own experiences and never referred to students who benefited personally and socially from attending those schools. It does not make any sense to bring other stories in with yours.

Yet, we have outsiders who have directed focus away from the healing process of witnessing and our ability to tell our stories and our first-hand experiences in safe spaces. Using the stories of students who enjoyed their time in residential schools to counteract ours is malicious, but it gives me the impetus to delve into the issue of denialism.

In the book entitled Visions of the Heart by David Long and Olive Dickason, it states:

Jan Hare and Jean Barman note in their analysis that understanding the past and present significance of residential schools means much more than critiquing the personal and cultural experiences of students and their extended family, tallying up how many First Nations people were negatively and positively affected or exploring the evolution of educational policies and practices. Hare and Barman assert that we understand residential schooling and other social phenomena to the extent that we listen to those who offer a variety of perspectives on their historical, structural, cultural and interpersonal dimensions. Like any other perspective on human life, they provide us with only a partial understanding.

This is where we are at now: a crossroads. The impact of denialism includes the following consequences that were mentioned today: It creates racial terror, there is hostility generated towards and targeting of an identifiable group and it is wilful promotion.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, or TRC, states:

The truth telling and reconciliation process as part of an overall holistic and comprehensive response to the Indian Residential School legacy is a sincere indication and acknowledgement of the injustices and harms experienced by Aboriginal people and the need for continued healing. This is a profound commitment to establishing new relationships embedded in mutual recognition and respect that will forge a brighter future. The truth of our common experiences will help set our spirits free and pave the way to reconciliation.

Residential schools were a key instrument in colonialism, dislocating First Nations from families and communities and dispossessing them of culture, language and land. These harms were ignored and unacknowledged for a very long time.

Acknowledgement of the specific harms and the healing that may accompany this is necessary to develop better relationships between First Nations, non-Aboriginal peoples, the groups that ran the schools and the federal government. Denialism prevents and obscures forward movement by continuing to only present one side, thereby downplaying the horrific experience of attending residential school with strange people who saw us as needing reform and new identities.

I don’t need strangers to retell my story in their version.

Building new, respectful relationships is central; denialism prevents this. Reconciliation is central; denialism prevents this. Why have denialists inserted themselves into our lives in such a negative manner?

I did not support adding denialism to this act. It would prevent conversations that need to happen, conversations that are already difficult to generate. As young people told me, they were afraid to ask questions because they were afraid to be seen as racist, even though the questions came from wanting to understand the history of First Nations and residential schools. This came up when I went to one of the law schools.

There are also former students who have stated that they had a good experience. I know that when I first left residential school, I felt that it had not been a negative experience, but that was assimilation and denialism on my part. That is part of the danger: Many of us denied, and we would criminalize those people.

It is also an example of what I have absorbed over the years. “Kill the Indian in the child” was what we absorbed over our formative years. I was in residential school for 11 years. I’m sure many of you have heard this quote, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed,” which is attributed to Steve Biko. He emphasized that the minds of the oppressed can be a powerful tool in the struggle against oppression, highlighting the importance of self-awareness and consciousness in the fight for liberation.

Over the years, I came to realize what had happened to me, and then the rage came. How could people take me and put me in a brick building for 11 years with complete strangers? I never knew violence in my life at home.

Therefore, we will be requesting a study on denialism so that the Senate and Canada can understand the ramifications of continuous challenge by others and the consequences of denying our experiences at residential schools. Now they are adding unmarked graves to this list of denialism. If needed, when we are at the end of our study, this act can be amended then.

I just want you to know that denialism causes a lot of havoc in our lives, and it is very scary for many people on the reserve level. We have had this conversation.

It is a dangerous practice, and it really angers me. When we’re making progress, there are always issues that keep coming up. However, we’re not going to stop. Thank you. Kinanâskomitinawow.

Yes, please.

Yes.

Thank you very much, senator, for your speech. It is greatly appreciated. I agree with everything you said.

Do you think a government inquiry on residential school denialism in the Senate Chamber would be a good complement to a study in a committee?

Yes, we could talk about that as a group of Indigenous senators and see what the best way to move forward with this is. Thank you for the suggestion.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in Innu-aimun.]

And thank you for the good question; it is also important and very sacred. Thank you, Senator LaBoucane-Benson.

Honourable senators, nearly five years ago, I delivered my inaugural speech where you are seated now, Senator Youance. In my speech, I said that I would be scattering beads, some of which might be beads representing truth and hope, in the hope that my colleagues in this place would help gather them so that we could work together.

There are people watching us who are outside this shaputuan, which is a large Innu tent, or a bubble, as others might call it. That is okay by me too. It is therefore essential to remember and to tell those watching us that, for me and for many people, the Senate plays a fundamental role within our democratic institutions. That is very clear.

It is also a place where minority voices can be heard. That is the role of committees: to consult, listen, debate and exchange ideas. These spaces allow us to better understand the realities experienced by the communities and to represent, or rather lift up, those whose voices are too often ignored.

That was the spirit in which I approached consideration of Bill C-9 yesterday, even though I knew that some amendments had been rejected. I respect that decision. I feel emotional about it, but I respect it.

That is what got me thinking a lot last night. Yes, we have the right to react, but how can we also take action?

I also want to point out that some people in this chamber experienced residential schools first-hand. We have proof of that. Those same residential schools became a day school system that I was part of. It must never be forgotten that several of us attended day schools or still live with their harmful intergenerational effects. It is important to me to clarify that all this is part of history in 2026 too.

The effects of these policies didn’t end after a single generation. They still linger. Our families, communities and institutions are still affected. That’s why these debates are never purely theoretical. They are coloured by emotion and lived experience.

I’m going to say this in my own words — because, yes, words are important. Our debates are debates of law, but also debates of fact and living debates. When we rise, we rise to share our experience, our memories and our lived experiences. That’s what makes our work so meaningful. It’s what also forces us to look for practical ways to move forward: It’s a portage, because we cross all this ground together.

It’s true that consultations are very important. Engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis is essential, but I would not want the duty to consult to always become a barrier to action. It must not prevent us from doing what we can do today. Every little step allows us to go further.

That’s why I was left feeling unsatisfied or a bit sore yesterday, because we weren’t able to resolve everything with the amendments or with certain amendments that were rejected. Still, we should remember that these amendments were not a substitute for consultations. They would not have excused the government from working with First Nations and Indigenous Peoples. They would have been a step in the right direction.

Once again, this shows why words are important. Like you, Senator Moreau, I feel they are important. Words are important, but when certain words are omitted from legislation, they are even more important. The word “denialism” wasn’t in there, but we’re finding solutions. Let it be known that Indigenous women get the job done.

That’s why I can’t help but wonder whether I should expect the government to come back with its own legislative proposal developed in collaboration with the First Peoples who hold the knowledge. That would be a commendable initiative on the government’s part, because that could address one of its commitments. The government has made a commitment to respond to the Calls for Justice and many other matters and issues that affect Indigenous Peoples. That would be solid proof that the government’s commitment will translate into concrete action.

I still have 20 years left here. I hope I don’t find myself saying “we didn’t see that in this bill” for the next 20 years. Are we also becoming a state that is guilty of institutional denialism? I certainly hope not. If we are, you can count on me to always lovingly call it out.

The government has also committed to responding to the Calls for Justice of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The government received recommendations from Kimberly Murray, who served as the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools.

Too often in these debates, we end up divided, just as we are right now. We could have sensed this division, or rather we did sense it. In all sincerity, I believe we need to come together to achieve a common goal, which is to combat hatred. We have experience with hatred. We are on the receiving end of it. We must not forget that we’ve pushed aside a group. To be completely honest, it could be put another way, but, in my own words, we’ve pushed aside a group. We need to reverse course right away and say, “We didn’t really push you aside, because you’re experiencing this hatred, too.”

I will therefore be following the next steps very closely.

I also want to remind you — because history is important — that in 2019, in this chamber, back when I was still a “free moccasin,” I was wrapping up the national inquiry, and we were closely examining how the Senate had taken a firm stance on an issue that directly affected the representation of former students of residential schools. At the time, a senator had posted letters on an institutional platform containing comments that were considered racist towards First Nations peoples and residential schools. The Senate took action. The Senate concluded that this occurrence was not merely an intellectual debate, but a matter of our institutions’ responsibility towards the truth, the dignity of the survivors and our collective memory. That gave me hope.

This decision was also a reminder of how we talk about this history and its real consequences. I should also remind you that, just recently, back home in my land that people call Quebec, Nitassinan, the top headline one morning on RDI, TVA and others was about “a white Quebec.” “A white Quebec,” in 2026, last week. This happened just recently, though our long days in the Senate are throwing my sense of time out of whack. To me, it felt like 10,000 years of my Innu ancestors’ history had been wiped out. Speech like that isn’t neutral. It’s still very present and it hurts. Let’s bear in mind that this reality can’t simply disappear with the snap of a finger. Yes, it will be important to find solutions so that we no longer have to wake up to this kind of image.

I will conclude by saying that we are fortunate to be able to consult, study, listen and debate within our committees. In addition, two First Nations sisters, who experienced the effects of residential schools and day schools, are sending a message of love to the people here and in the other place, saying that it may be time for our committees to really study these issues, which, unfortunately, are still highly relevant today.

This is the little bead I’m putting down in front of you, colleagues. We are all witnessing these truths. Personally, I love speaking out, but what I love most of all is taking action.

Legislative reconciliation on these issues will be important. I hope that we will create a chapter, that we can say the two chambers did it mamu, meaning together, and that we will ensure that Bill C-9 is improved or, at the very least, properly drafted.

[Editor’s Note: Senator spoke in Innu-aimun.]

Yes, for Senator Audette.

Yes, of course.

Thank you, Senator Audette.

I listened carefully to your speech. You talked about the importance of facts and you provided context pertaining to day schools and residential schools. I would like to pick up on one aspect you described.

You talked about a very unfortunate incident that occurred recently in Quebec. A small group of about 15 people put up a banner that said, in French, “I remember a white Quebec.”

I would like to know if you acknowledge that Quebec politicians as a whole condemned this unacceptable act and that, on call-in shows and in media comment pieces, the majority of Quebecers, be they white, Indigenous, Quebec-born or not, strongly condemned this act.

Furthermore, do you find it encouraging that such actions prevent repeat offences and demonstrate that the majority of Quebecers are fighting systemic racism and care about First Nations?

Thank you very much, Senator Saint-Germain. That is a fact. Politicians have spoken out, and so has society. It was a shocking incident.

This gives me the opportunity to state that, following the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Quebec will be the only province with specific legislation that will enable families who have lost a loved one to find answers and discover the whereabouts of their missing children, whether in mass graves or individual graves. That is a fact. However, it would be good if this were the case across Canada.

Unfortunately, we also encounter obstacles when we demonstrate that our graves have been damaged by acts of racism. It does not always make the headlines, and politicians are not aware of it. Even when it does not get much media coverage, we need to ensure we can support Indigenous Peoples.

I want to thank you, because I was proud to see that many people stood up to defend the Black community and Indigenous Peoples.

Thank you, Senator Moreau, for speaking about the importance of the role of the government in educating the public when they have the wrong information or wrong materials. I’m going to come back to that but on another bill in the future.

What it awakened for me, though, is a feeling I have had for the last couple of days. I want to thank all of our colleagues who have spoken but, in particular, those of you from the African-Canadian community and those of you from the First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities.

In the work that many of us do when it comes to oppression, we know that there isn’t a hierarchy of oppression, or there shouldn’t be, and some of the ways in which the dialogue around this bill has evolved have created an impression — I would suggest — to some that there is a hierarchy of oppression.

We also haven’t talked a lot about what the antidote to oppression is. Oppression and hatred are usually rooted in inequality. One of the truths about how we address many of these issues is to truly address inequality.

I hope, whether it is through an inquiry or other legislation, that we also send the message back to the other place that we expect work to be done in these areas, and that it is not acceptable to continue to allow hatred and friction to build between peoples because some have and some don’t.

My heart goes out to all of you who had to listen again to the stories. I’m not on the Human Rights Committee, but I attended a number of the meetings, and I cannot imagine being a Black person in this chamber and having to listen, yet again, to what has been a part of your life. I can’t imagine being an Indigenous person in this chamber and having to listen, yet again, to something being totally erased from the discussion of anti-hate legislation.

I want to say, on behalf of all of us — and I do, as you know, fit into one of the categories addressed — that does not mean we should ever get away with ignoring that, and I want to thank all of you who have spoken. We know it doesn’t come without significant personal, emotional, psychological and social costs. I want to thank all of you for that and for the incredible work you do.

I hope that we will fulfill our role of pushing back against majoritarianism and that we insist on the equality measures that every person in this country deserves, not just those who manage to get their agenda before the elected house.

I want to thank you very much. I look forward to the rest of the discussion, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues. In the meantime, please know my heart is with those of you for whom this has been an incredible struggle today. We saw you, we heard you, and we know that it continues to be a challenge for all of us to address these issues. Meegwetch. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. As Senator Pate did just before me, I want to thank all the members of the Human Rights Committee, including the bill’s sponsor, Senator Wells, for their dedicated work on this legislation.

They came back to Ottawa during a break week for two full days of hearings and then held an extra meeting to hear another seven hours of testimony last week. It was not easy testimony to hear. Some of it was legal and technical, but other witnesses spoke with pain and power about the discrimination and violence they and their communities have endured, so I want to express my gratitude to all the members of the committee for going above and beyond in their study of Bill C-9.

The bill, basically, falls into three main parts.

The first element deals with hate propaganda, including the display of hateful symbols, including the Nazi hakenkreuz, as well as the Nazi SS Lightning Bolts or double “Siegrune.” It now also, of course, includes the display of the noose, the noxious symbol of lynchings in the American South transplanted here. Also included are any symbols associated with the long list of groups on the government’s terrorist watch list.

The second element of the bill creates a new secondary hate crime offence to be attached to any crime motivated by hatred, which would dramatically increase the potential sentence for those found guilty. People tend to call it a stand-alone offence, but I prefer to think of it as a “stand-beside” offence, since it must be connected to the conviction of another crime.

The third element deals with efforts to obstruct access to places of worship, cultural centres, cemeteries and educational and seniors’ facilities where targeted minority groups might gather and with efforts to intimidate people from attending such places.

The goals of Bill C-9 are laudable — especially at a time when Canada’s entire social media ecosystem is being filled with toxic hate-mongering, more and more of it AI-generated. There’s a 24-7 cacophony of disinformation and bullying, designed to poison our community concord. But the evidence heard by the committee was not just mixed. It was conflicted and at times deeply ambivalent, as many thoughtful witnesses raised serious concerns that the bill, however well-intentioned, could trespass on constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

Let it be said, many witnesses spoke strongly in praise of the bill. For me, some of the most compelling testimony came from Stephen Camp, a retired member of the Hate Crimes Unit of the Edmonton Police Service, who now serves as the Project Director of the Organization for the Prevention of Violence Hate Crime Centre. Mr. Camp spoke clearly and urgently in favour of the new hate crime offence. I quote from his testimony:

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.

Several Jewish groups also offered powerful testimony about the corrosive, terrifying rise in anti-Semitism in Canada and the potential for Bill C-9 to respond to that crisis.

Let me quote from the presentation of Jaime Kirzner-Roberts, Senior Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center:

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.

She testified:

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. . . .

But other witnesses — including those who represented the very minority groups which are too often the victims of hate crimes themselves — were far cooler in their praise, raising repeated fears that parts of Bill C-9 could actually backfire and be turned against them, and that it could, in fact, undermine civil liberties that have historically protected them from persecution.

Balpreet Singh is the legal counsel for the World Sikh Organization of Canada, or WSO. On the one hand, he testified, his organization’s recent study of anti-Sikh hate in this country found, most disturbingly, that 65% of respondents across Canada had experienced anti-Sikh hate. On the other hand, though, he expressed concern that portions of Bill C-9 could undermine lawful political expression, peaceful protest and religious freedom. He said:

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.

He noted that several major Indian media outlets have already claimed erroneously that Bill C-9 was designed to crack down on Sikh groups in Canada. He said:

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.

Mr. Singh also testified that Sikh activists in Toronto were already feeling the repercussions of Bill C-9, even before it had passed. The issue, he explained, was, in part, the use of an important Sikh symbol, the khanda, which is used by all kinds of religious and cultural groups, but which is also incorporated in the iconography of some Sikh extremist groups that are on the government’s official list of terrorist entities. There was also confusion about the flying of the Khalistani flag.

Again, I quote from Mr. Singh:

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.

I must say his words have resonated with me ever since.

Some representatives of the Muslim community expressed parallel concerns.

Nora Fathalipour is the legal counsel for the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. Islamophobia, she acknowledged, is a huge concern for her community. She testified:

Muslims, along with many racialized and marginalized communities, know both the realities and dangers of hate first-hand. Many Muslims are targeted not only because of religion, but also because of race, ethnicity, language and dress, and non-Muslim minorities can be targeted when perceived as Muslim.

And yet, she called on the committee and the Senate to reject Bill C-9 in its entirety because of its erosion of civil liberties. She said:

Bill C-9 will not make our communities safer; it will instead likely increase overcriminalization of marginalized populations, encroach on political expression and constitutional freedoms, and cause an overall chilling effect that will deter long-standing traditions of democratic civic engagement on political and social issues. That will not make our communities safer.

And while several Jewish groups spoke passionately and eloquently in support of Bill C-9, especially in this time of vicious anti-Semitism from both the right and the left, the Jewish community is in no way united on this issue — not surprising, perhaps, in a culture that celebrates and prizes debate. As the adage goes, when you have two Jews, you have three opinions.

A coalition of five progressive Jewish groups — IfNotNow Toronto, Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Faculty Network, Jews Say No to Genocide and the United Jewish People’s Order — presented their own brief to the committee. I will quote from it:

Much of the talk around this Bill has been about addressing antisemitism. We know anti-Semitism is real and linked to all other forms of oppressive systems. We also know that criticism of the State of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, nor is protesting corporations, institutions or individuals who have directly supported the Israeli government or who seek to silence pro-Palestinian movements.

They continued:

Bill C-9 imposes severe consequences for protest activities, language and visual displays. The language of the legislation means that police will be enforcing a law based on their perception of people’s intentions. For example, the legislation says it should apply when actions are “motivated by hatred” and/or when there is “intent to provoke a state of fear”. This leaves a lot of room for bias to influence enforcement.

In much the same spirit, Eric Freeman, lawyer for Egale, reflected on the strengths of the bill — and its potentially problematic aspects — for the queer community. He told the committee:

The bill offers meaningful advances. The standalone hate crime offence carries genuine symbolic weight, and naming the harm matters for data collection and nationally consistent reporting. . . .

He continued:

Our primary concern is with the intimidation and obstruction offences, which remain overly broad and vague, and which grant significant discretion to law enforcement — discretion that risks inconsistent application, creates uncertainty for the public about what conduct is prohibited and opens the door to potential abuse.

He went on, and I’m going to quote him at some length because I think this is powerful testimony:

On our reading of the bill, if a church or community centre allows an anti-queer extremist speaker to use their space, non-violent 2SLGBTQI protesters could be charged with a hate crime offence simply because of the speaker’s chosen venue. Unlike bubble zone laws, these new offences provide no clear guidance on the conduct they criminalize.

On hate symbols, I note that the offence also covers any symbol associated with a terrorist entity, and that list can be expanded by future governments through a process that lacks transparency and offers limited avenues for challenge. For 2SLGBTQI communities, this matters. Our symbols — the pride flag, the lambda and the pink triangle — are used for connection, inclusion and protest. However, in a political climate where there are increasing calls to label trans organizations as terrorist entities, the listed-entity provision could put our communities at risk.

Now, these are serious reservations, my colleagues, voiced by serious people, the very people Bill C-9 was meant to protect. And I think they should give us serious pause. The need to combat hate is real and urgent, but we are running a very real risk of creating a tool that could be weaponized in the future against vulnerable communities. Have we struck the right balance between protecting the community and protecting Charter rights and civil liberties, especially our most fundamental rights of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly? I am not convinced that we have.

However, I am certain that we stand in this moment at an existential crossroads. No one in Canada can doubt the need for us to be combatting hate at this critical moment in our political history.

In my beloved home province of Alberta, we’ve seen a number of disturbing violent incidents where racial hatred appears to have been a motivating factor. And perhaps that’s not surprising, given the way the government of my province has been drumming up resentments against immigrants, refugees and Indigenous Peoples of late. When our own elected leaders engage in race-baiting rhetoric, when they pit Albertans against one another, they create a fetid environment wherein hate and hate crimes can flourish.

It was far-right extremist groups, neo-Nazis and White supremacists who presented the greatest danger to peace and order 30 and 40 years ago. It was hate-mongers like the Aryan Nations, the KKK and Jim Keegstra who kept me up at night in Alberta.

I was deeply grateful to the good government of former premier Peter Lougheed, which set out to combat hate in all its forms. In 1972, the Lougheed government passed Alberta’s first Bill of Rights and established the Alberta Human Rights Commission. In 1983, in response to the Jim Keegstra scandal, the Lougheed government established a special Committee on Tolerance and Understanding, led by then-MLA and future senator Ron Ghitter, to investigate racism and bigotry in Alberta schools and Alberta society. However worried I was about right-wing hate groups in my province, I felt confident that my government was committed to fighting discrimination and hate as well as championing an inclusive and tolerant society.

Today, in my home province, it is the government itself that seems most keen to stir up division, by scapegoating immigrants, refugees and temporary foreign workers, most recently with a series of five mischievous and malicious referendum questions. These are loaded, push-poll-type questions, carefully crafted to inculcate resentments of newcomers and to build a case to deny them services to which they are legally and constitutionally entitled. They don’t just pander to populism. They actually attempt to rile up Albertans who may support immigration by creating a false narrative that new arrivals, be they from overseas or from other provinces of Canada, are taking their jobs and stealing their social benefits.

Today, it is the Alberta government that is attacking the rights of trans and queer teens in order to make classrooms less safe and less welcoming, whether by invoking the “notwithstanding” clause to out kids to their parents or by banning — outlawing — pride rainbow flags in schools.

Today, it is the Alberta government that is championing the idea of rolling back treaty rights and railing against the duty to consult, as political leaders blame First Nations communities for opposing separatism and legally thwarting a true separatist referendum.

Today, it is the Alberta government that has consistently mainstreamed and normalized right-wing extremists and given a platform to those who want to break up our country while simultaneously attacking Indigenous rights, women’s rights and the very existence of racialized Albertans.

Alas, Bill C-9 cannot help us tackle the challenge of politicians who weaponize hatred, whether they are doing it for ideological or strategic reasons.

Perhaps, though, Bill C-9 can help us, at least somewhat, to deal with the dangers and consequences of this kind of stochastic terrorism, to denounce hate crimes when they happen and perhaps, if we’re lucky, deter them before they occur.

But the real problem, my friends, is that we cannot police or legislate our way out of hate. What we need is tolerance. What we need even more is understanding. What we need are leaders — in our cultural communities, in our houses of worship and in our city councils, our legislatures and Parliament — to stand up for justice, for freedom and for love.

We must stop giving in to the temptations to demonize or scapegoat those who are different from us and blame them for our own economic and social frustrations. We must stop being seduced by polarizing polemic and fight for a Canada where we are all treated with equality and inclusion, where we celebrate our differences and understand that it is those very differences, that glorious diversity, which gives our country its strength and makes Canada a moral beacon to the world. And we must be a Canada that works harder toward reconciliation, which begins with an acknowledgement and a reckoning with the tragic intergenerational legacy of residential schools.

Most of all, we must not let the forces of discord delight in turning minority groups against one another. This is a moment when Canadian Muslims and Canadian Jews of goodwill must stand together against xenophobia and bigotry; when Indigenous and immigrant communities must stand together and not let resentments or suspicions divide them; when the diverse South Asian community must unite against White supremacy, whatever their individual religious and cultural differences; when religious minority communities and the queer community must stand together and see that they have more in common than what divides them; and when trans activists and feminist activists must make common cause against misogyny and prejudice.

And for those of us in this Senate — in this marvellous, multicultural, polyglot community that we share — I say this: Let us be our best selves. Let us not be comforted or satisfied that fines or arrests — especially as a primary mechanism — can ever end hate in our country.

Let every one of us here in this chamber sally forth instead to champion the true values of this Canada, this country that we love and are all so honoured to serve.

Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Honourable senators, I rise at third reading in my capacity as critic of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places).

As you know, colleagues, Bill C-9 addresses a grave and deeply troubling reality: the rise of hate crimes in Canada. Canadians firmly oppose hate crimes, of course. We oppose acts that target Canadians because of their faith, their origin, their identity or their membership in a community. We oppose all forms of intimidation, violence or threats directed at a person for who they are.

It must be acknowledged that the situation has worsened. As I noted in my speech at second reading, the numbers are alarming: Since 2015, police-reported hate crimes in Canada have increased by 258%. In 2024 alone, nearly 5,000 hate crimes were reported across the country, the highest number ever recorded.

Faced with such a reality, it is correct that Parliament should want to act. It is also correct that a bill like Bill C-9 should present itself with an intention that, at first glance, seems laudable: to better protect the communities targeted and to better respond to hatred.

That said, in criminal law, good intention is not enough. The question is not simply whether we should act. The real question is this: Are we acting in the right way? Does the bill respond to genuine gaps in the law? Does it provide tools that are truly necessary? Or does it instead raise serious problems of scope and application? Does it restrict Canadians’ legitimate rights?

That is precisely the underlying criticism that was raised at second reading and that, in my view, remains fully intact at third reading. The Canadian criminal law already contains provisions to address hate propaganda. It already contains offences to respond to intimidation, threats, harassment, obstruction, mischief and violence. It already allows courts to take hatred into account as an aggravating factor at sentencing. In other words, Parliament is not starting from zero.

Accordingly, one question is clear: Are the new provisions proposed here truly necessary and sufficiently well circumscribed? And that question is far from abstract. The testimony heard before the Senate Human Rights Committee brought to light several very concrete difficulties in the way the bill was drafted and in how it could be applied.

I will begin with the symbols offence. It is undoubtedly one of the provisions that attracted the clearest reservations in committee. The concerns came from several different directions at once. Timothy McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, saw it as a provision that is both redundant and too vague, arguing that the Criminal Code already allows the wilful promotion of hatred to be prosecuted and already allows the use of symbols to be taken into account in that context. He also warned about the broad discretion left to police officers to determine, on the ground, what constitutes a prohibited symbol.

Even law enforcement acknowledged that the current drafting poses problems. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police supported the general objective of the measures while recognizing that the wording concerning a symbol that “. . . so nearly resembles . . . .” another introduces a significant degree of subjectivity for front-line officers. Katherine Stephenson of the Toronto Police Service added that, even with a more precise list, officers will still have to determine whether the high threshold for wilful promotion of hatred has actually been met, which will remain complex in practice.

Other witnesses brought the debate back to a more fundamental principle: When symbolic expression is criminalized, Parliament must proceed with caution.

That was the point made, among others, by Lisa Bildy of the Free Speech Union of Canada, who reminded the committee that symbols are themselves a form of expression and that the current provisions remain, in her view, too vague and too susceptible to abuse.

At the end of the day, one common conclusion emerges from this testimony: The new symbols offence still raises real problems of clarity and scope.

The same reservations appear in the part of the bill dealing with access to certain places and intimidation. Here again, several witnesses acknowledged that the objective pursued is legitimate.

The Canadian Bar Association said so clearly: People must be able to attend a place of worship, a school or a community centre without fear. But it also warned that the terms “obstructs” and “interferes” remain very broad, especially in places where Charter-protected activities may also occur, such as protests, picket lines or other forms of public expression.

Its message was simple: When a criminal offence touches expressive activity, the wording must be as clear and narrow as possible.

Other witnesses pushed the criticism further still by questioning the necessity of these new provisions altogether. Anaïs Bussières McNicoll of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association argued that the criterion of “intent to provoke a state of fear” is too vague and too subjective.

Finally, some witnesses insisted on the very concrete risk that these provisions could spill over onto ordinary protest activity.

Lisa Bildy argued that a demonstration can be intimidating without thereby becoming criminal. Her concern is that the bill rests on notions that are too subjective and thus gives authorities a very flexible tool against unpopular forms of protest.

Colleagues, the new stand-alone hate crime offence has also raised serious reservations. The first reservation concerns the threshold of the offence itself.

The Canadian Bar Association warned the committee that the proposed definition of hatred, together with the clarification clauses that accompany it, risks creating interpretive uncertainty. Its point was important: In such a sensitive area, the line between what is odious, humiliating or offensive and what legally constitutes hatred must be drawn with great precision.

An important amendment debated at committee concerned the long-standing religious expression defence found in subsection 319(3) of the Criminal Code. This was proposed by Senator Yonah Martin and supported by me, but it did not receive enough support in the committee or a few moments ago in this chamber at third reading to pass.

Honourable senators will also know that in the other place the government adopted an amendment that removed this protection, which historically provided a defence for individuals who, in good faith, express or attempt to establish an opinion on a religious subject based on a religious text or sincerely held religious belief.

Senator Martin proposed an amendment to restore that defence. I supported her amendment because it sought to preserve an important balance that has existed in Canadian law for decades between combatting the wilful promotion of hatred and protecting freedom of religion and expression.

The amendment would not have created a licence to spread hatred. The high threshold required to establish the offence of wilful promotion of hatred would have remained fully intact. It would have ensured that legitimate religious discourse, conducted in good faith, continued to receive the protection Parliament has long recognized.

Unfortunately, as I said, Senator Martin’s amendment was defeated in committee and here at third reading.

In my view, preserving clear safeguards for lawful religious expression would have strengthened the bill and provided greater certainty that the Criminal Code continues to target genuine hatred while respecting fundamental freedoms.

Beyond those issues, a more targeted concern was raised with respect to the scope of this new offence. Mark Joseph of The Democracy Fund pointed out that it would apply not only to offences under the Criminal Code but also to other federal statutes.

It was precisely on that point that I proposed an amendment at committee — an amendment that was not adopted — to remove the words “or any other Act of Parliament.”

The objective was straightforward: to limit this new offence to offences under the Criminal Code only. Why was that change important? An offence of this nature should be targeted. As currently drafted, it opens the door to attaching additional criminal liability to conduct governed by other federal statutes.

In theory, an offence under the Canada Elections Act or the Canada Labour Code could thus give rise to a criminal prosecution if hatred is alleged as a motive. That creates a real risk of overreach.

Yet, that amendment would not have stripped this bill of its substance. Hate-motivated offences under the Criminal Code would still have been fully covered. It simply would have kept this new offence anchored in the core of criminal law, instead of extending its reach across all federal statutes.

Further, the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not contain criminal offences. With this provision, it may. Children as young as 12 years old are at risk of a hate-motivated criminal charge under this change.

Honourable senators, all of this testimony points to a more general criticism: The bill is repetitive.

Ms. McNicoll of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said plainly that the new obstruction provision clearly duplicates existing Criminal Code provisions.

Staff Sergeant Ali Toghrol of the Ottawa Police Service made a similar point about the symbols provision. He reminded the committee that the existing Criminal Code provisions, particularly subsections 319(1) and 319(2), already cover this type of conduct and that any new wording should complement the existing law, not duplicate it.

Professor Dwight Newman also cautioned against a bill that risks muddying the waters rather than producing useful change. In his view, where very similar provisions already exist in the Criminal Code but are not being effectively enforced, simply adding new ones does not solve the problem. It mainly adds complexity without guaranteeing better results.

That, in my view, is one of the basic problems with Bill C-9. The bill multiplies new offences without clearly demonstrating why the current law is insufficient in itself. In criminal law, repeating is not necessarily legislating better. One can make the code heavier without better protecting the communities one claims to defend.

At the end of this study, a broader criticism emerged. Kenneth Grad, Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba, reminded the committee that several of the new offences proposed by the bill do little more than add specificity to crimes that already exist.

He posed the real question, one that still seems highly relevant: The issue is not whether hatred is harmful — of course it is — but whether expanding criminal offences will actually reduce that harm in practice. On that point, he was skeptical, and that skepticism deserves to be heard.

The same message came back elsewhere in different forms.

Richard Marceau of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs reminded us that we may have the best laws on paper, but if they are not properly enforced they become pointless. The tools already exist; they still have to be used.

Mark Sandler of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism also stressed that criminal law is only one tool among others and that prevention, education and other upstream measures are also necessary. In other words, even those who support the objective of the bill recognize that the Criminal Code alone will not be enough.

Even on the policing side, the need for caution was expressed.

Staff Sergeant Toghrol of the Ottawa Police Service stated that if the bill is to be truly useful, it will require clarity in the definitions, specialized training, clear prosecutorial guidance and greater consistency across the country. Without that, colleagues, enforcement risks being uneven at best.

That is why, at the end of the day, the criticism that remains is not a criticism of the objective; it concerns the means chosen.

Bill C-9 rests largely on the idea that, by adding new offences to the Criminal Code, we will respond better to hatred. Yet the testimony heard in committee showed that several of these provisions risk adding complexity without clearly demonstrating that they will change reality on the ground.

Honourable colleagues, no one here disputes that hatred must be fought. The real question is whether this bill, in its current form, is the right answer. After the testimony we heard and the serious reservations that were raised, I am not convinced that Bill C-9, in its current form, constitutes a sufficiently clear and coherent response to the hatred we must combat.

Thank you, colleagues.