QUESTION PERIOD — Ministry of Justice
Hate Groups
November 19, 2025
Thank you, minister. My question is about Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. In the bill, you make it a criminal offence for someone to display a symbol that is principally associated with a listed entity. A listed entity includes things such as the Bishnoi Gang and Tren de Aragua — organizations that are more commonly thought of as organized crime organizations — as well as political extremist groups like the Kurdistan Workers’ Party or the Shining Path.
But the list does not include notable hate groups such as the KKK, which would mean that displaying a burning cross or a noose would not be captured by Bill C-9. Could you explain to me why your department decided to use the listed entity list as a proxy for hate groups?
Thank you, senator, for your question.
I have one point of clarity before addressing the point you made about the groups you referenced. We did not simply criminalize the display of certain symbols, but we criminalized the wilful promotion of hate through the display of those symbols. Of course, if someone wilfully promotes hate today through the use of those symbols or otherwise, there is the potential for criminal liability that could attach to those acts of hate, should they meet the existing definitions within the Criminal Code.
The question you posed about which symbols are included on the list for that additional charge is an interesting and important one. I look forward to the benefit of the deliberations of the various parliamentary committees, whether in the House of Commons or the Senate, which may seek to improve these bills.
The reason we’ve chosen to limit it to a certain objective criteria — specifically those which are listed as terrorist entities in the Criminal Code — is to ensure that this is not subject to the political whims of the governments of the day, but rather it is tied to some pre-existing standards that can evolve on an evergreen basis based on the decisions taken by the national security apparatus.
Should those decisions evolve over time to group new organizations into the definition — of course in an automatic way — we would expect those symbols to be incorporated by reference. This is something that I do not intend to be dogmatic about. This morning, I had an opportunity to meet with the steering group for Canada’s Black Justice Strategy who raised similar concerns. Should parliamentarians determine there is a better path forward, please know that I will accept those recommendations in good faith.
This does beg the question: If you were going to use a list created for a completely different purpose and transpose it into this legislation, surely you will always have the problem that there are people on that list who are not hate groups and there are hate groups that will never qualify to be on that list.
What remedy would you suggest is available, because the mechanism in the legislation does not seem fit for purpose?
Thank you. Let me reiterate the invitation for parliamentarians in either house to offer feedback by virtue of amendments so that this bill can be improved.
You realize when you try to ring-fence issues as complex as hate, there is no one perfect definition that the entire world will agree upon. We wanted to strive to achieve some level of objectivity to avoid this becoming a political decision that governments down the road in 10, 20 or 50 years from now could use in a way that may not necessarily reflect the policy outcomes we’re hoping to achieve today.
We thought it was a fairly safe bet to start with listed terrorist entities and the Nazi Party in particular, but should there be other definitions to better capture groups that actually promote hate, please know that I would be interested in the feedback from this chamber.
