Hon. Kristopher Wells: Honourable senators, I am pleased to introduce Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a bill that would strengthen and enhance Canada’s ability to address hate and intimidation in communities across the country.
My own experience with hate crimes spans more than 20 plus years: as a community member, researcher and target for hate as a visible member of the 2SLGBTQI+ community. Over these decades, I have helped to support the Edmonton Police Service’s Hate Crimes Unit; engaged in new recruit training and restorative justice practices; and helped to develop and serve as the elected co-chair of the Edmonton Police Chief’s Community Advisory Council, which was composed of representatives from the Jewish, Muslim, Asian, Black, Indigenous and 2SLGBTQI+ communities. All of our communities were united in standing against the scourge of hate with the belief that when hate targets one minority community, it targets us all.
Today, Bill C-9 has reached an important parliamentary milestone: second reading in the Senate. As we carefully consider this bill, I invite you to share your perspectives and experiences in support of a rigorous debate on whether the Criminal Code reforms proposed achieve their intended purpose. That is, does this legislation enhance protections for vulnerable communities and provide law enforcement and the criminal justice system with additional tools needed to respond to hate-motivated conduct?
Listening to diverse voices will be central to this task before us.
Debate in the other place on Bill C-9 has been strong and robust. We have heard varied and differing views and witnessed, at times, spirited exchanges, which included over 35 hours of debate and more than 30 witnesses, resulting in a series of amendments designed to clarify language and add important safeguards. These informative deliberations speak to the complexity and importance of the issues Bill C-9 seeks to address in this timely and critical piece of government legislation, which fulfills an important election promise made to Canadians.
Because of the complexity of the important matters that Bill C-9 seeks to address, it is critical that differing views are heard. Ideas around how to protect communities from hate while respecting Charter-protected rights and freedoms can and should be thoroughly debated. This exchange of views is crucial to ensuring that the proposed measures included in this bill are appropriately tailored to the significant harms posed by hate and intimidation to individuals, communities and Canadian society at large. It is precisely through this robust exchange of ideas, conducted with rigour and the utmost respect, that we can achieve the best results for all Canadians, including the most vulnerable among us.
As we consider this piece of legislation in the Senate, let us move forward with the shared conviction that there is no place for hate in Canada, that in protecting one’s dignity and safety, we reinforce the very foundations of our democracy.
Let us be clear: Hate crimes present a real, growing and pressing public safety threat to communities across our country.
For context, recent Statistics Canada data on hate crimes paint a stark picture, with 4,777 incidents reported in 2023, marking a 32% rise from 2022, which had 3,612 incidents. This is the third consecutive sharp increase in four years, with the total number of hate crimes more than doubling — up over 145% — since 2019.
The three most targeted identifiable groups for hate crimes were based on religion, race or ethnicity and sexual orientation. There were 1,284 incidents based on religion, which was a 67% increase from 2022. The majority targeted the Jewish community, with 900 incidents, and the Muslim community, with 211 incidents. Race or ethnicity was involved in 2,377 incidents, a 6% increase from 2022. The most common groups targeted were the Black, Arab, West Asian and South Asian communities. Sexual orientation was involved in 860 incidents, up 69% from 2022. Over half these incidents specifically targeted gay and lesbian individuals.
Importantly, these numbers only tell part of the story. Hate crimes are consistently under-reported, with studies indicating that as many as four out of five victims never report their experiences to police. Researchers call this lack of reporting a dark figure, as under-reporting conceals the full extent of hate‑motivated crimes in Canada. Moreover, statistics can never fully convey the true extent fear, anxiety and disruption hate crimes cause in people’s daily lives. Hate crimes are often called “message crimes” because they not only target individuals but are intended to send a message of fear and terror into the hearts of entire communities.
Police-reported hate crimes can never fully capture the lived realities of individuals and communities who face these attacks first-hand. Behind every hate crime is a person, a family and a community that is profoundly affected. This includes individuals and communities who fear for their safety on public streets, in local neighbourhoods and even in the confines of their homes. No Canadian should have to live in fear, work in fear, love in fear or worry about where or when the next attack might occur.
Across Canada, evidence indicates how various minority groups are disproportionately targeted by hate crimes. We’re seeing hate crimes directed at Indigenous Peoples, Black and other racialized communities, religious communities and 2SLGBTQI+ communities, among others.
I’d like to share a few recent examples that demonstrate the persistent and pernicious nature of hate in Canada. This past week, in the very heart of Toronto’s historic 2SLGBTQI+ community, 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. Last year, a bookstore was targeted with transphobic vandalism, including Nazi symbols and hateful messages calling for the extermination of 2SLGBTQI+ people, spreading profound fear throughout communities in Halifax. 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, including children. 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.
These horrific attacks, which target groups simply because of whom they pray to, where they gather, who they are or whom they love, have no place in Canada.
These acts of hate create a sense of vulnerability that ripples far beyond the immediate victims, affecting entire communities’ sense of security, well-being, societal participation and trust. We must take a stand against such acts, which challenge the very ideal of Canada as an inclusive, diverse, peaceful and democratic society.
Against this concerning rise in hate, there have been widespread calls from victims, communities and law enforcement for decisive action to counter hate and make communities safer across this country. Bill C-9 responds to these calls by providing new tools to counter hate and intimidation, including four new criminal offences, each targeting a specific area of growing concern.
First, the new intimidation and obstruction offences would make it a crime to intentionally intimidate people or interfere with or obstruct access to places of worship, schools, daycares, seniors’ residences, cemeteries, sporting activities, community cultural centres or administrative spaces that are primarily used by identifiable groups. These are spaces that must remain publicly accessible and safe for community members.
In this regard, it is important to clearly emphasize that these new offences would not criminalize any form of lawful expression or peaceful assembly. These offences target willful and intentional criminal conduct directed at people trying to access these enumerated spaces when primarily used by identifiable groups.
Moreover, these new offences would not amount to bubble legislation — or “bubble zones,” as they’re frequently called — established under provincial or municipal laws and designed to limit protest activity near certain specified locations. In contrast, these new intimidation and obstruction offences specifically address criminal conduct deliberately impeding access to religious, educational and cultural places primarily used by identifiable groups.
Similar legislation has already been passed protecting health care workers and people seeking safe access to health services, which is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Similarly, these newly proposed offences do not apply where a person is peacefully protesting or communicating information, such as holding a sign, chanting, sharing information or conducting a peaceful demonstration.
Importantly, these new offences require willful intent to intimidate and provoke fear in order to impede access, meaning that they only apply to deliberate and harmful conduct, not peaceful presence, protest or expression. For example, an offence could potentially include someone blocking an entrance to a place of worship or Jewish school while holding a baseball bat and yelling slurs.
Another proposed addition to the Criminal Code under Bill C-9 includes a new hate propaganda offence, which would prohibit intentionally promoting hatred against an identifiable group by publicly displaying certain hate or terrorism symbols. This would include symbols principally used by or associated with listed terrorist entities under the Criminal Code, as well as the Nazi Hakenkreuz and Nazi SS bolts, or that nearly resemble these described symbols.
Importantly, this proposed offence applies only in very specific circumstances and does not ban symbols or criminalize the mere display of symbols. Rather, it targets the public display of symbols clearly identified with a terrorist entity or Nazi ideology for the express purpose of promoting hate.
To be clear, these symbols must be purposively displayed with the objective of promoting hate against an identifiable group. This is a high legal threshold. Importantly, this law does not apply based on how a symbol might be perceived. There must be clear intent to promote hatred.
The offence is carefully tailored to ensure that the public display of symbols for legitimate purposes, such as artistic, educational or journalistic purposes or when used in good faith to point out for purposes of removal of such a symbol, would not be captured by this offence.
This new offence also includes an important additional safeguard, which requires not only wilful intent to promote hatred but also the consent of the Attorney General before any charges may proceed.
To be clear, this means charges cannot be laid by police alone and must be reviewed and authorized at a higher level, which adds an additional layer of scrutiny, ensuring the careful application of the law.
Finally, a new stand-alone hate crime offence, as proposed in Bill C-9, would make it a crime to carry out illegal acts motivated by hatred based on specific grounds, such as race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
This new hybrid offence would more explicitly and consistently denounce all crimes motivated by hatred. For clarity, this new offence would not make actions that were previously legal suddenly illegal, nor would it apply to civil actions. Rather, it would target conduct that is already illegal under federal laws.
For example, to be found guilty of this new hate crime offence, an individual must commit an existing offence under the Criminal Code, such as mischief, uttering threats or assault, and that criminal conduct must be motivated by hatred against an identifiable group.
This offence would have an escalating penalty structure, which would provide higher penalties based on the seriousness of the underlying offence, such as hate-motivated assault with a weapon or murder. It would still be up to judges to impose a fit sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
To sum up, by explicitly identifying hate-motivated conduct as a distinct offence, Bill C-9 proposes to do the following: First, it will help acknowledge the particular impact and harm done to victims and communities targeted by hate, as well as further denounce and deter hate-motivated criminal conduct in Canada by naming these offences for what they are — hate — and by providing enhanced sentencing based on the impact and gravity that hate has in Canadian society.
Second, this new offence will support more consistent enforcement and prosecution of hate-motivated acts and clearly signal that crimes rooted in hate are an attack on the fundamental equality and safety of everyone in Canada.
Alongside these new offences, Bill C-9 would add a standardized definition of “hatred” to the Criminal Code to clarify what conduct amounts to a hate crime or hate speech. Based on the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, “hatred” would refer to “. . . an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation . . . .”
For greater certainty, the bill would also make clear what is not hatred, namely acts that discredit, humiliate, hurt or offend. This added clarity would provide police and prosecutors with more guidance to help inform decisions on whether to lay or proceed with charges, helping to support more timely and meaningful responses for victims.
This hate crime definition will also assist with the standardization of enforcement, more robust data collection and a more accurate understanding of how police-reported hate crimes are impacting identified communities across Canada.
Next, I would also like to highlight two key amendments to the bill that were adopted at report stage in the other place, which may help to clarify some of the concerns that senators have, no doubt, read in their emails or heard in conversation.
First, as introduced in Parliament, the original bill proposed to repeal the requirement to obtain Attorney General consent before laying charges for three of the existing hate propaganda offences.
In response to consultations and concerns raised that repealing this requirement may increase vexatious and frivolous prosecutions, the bill was amended to maintain this requirement and extend its application to the new hate propaganda offence targeting the public display of certain hate and terrorism symbols.
As previously mentioned, Attorney General consent provides an important safeguard and an additional level of scrutiny before police can proceed with charges.
Second, the bill would repeal what is often referred to as the “good faith religious opinion defence,” which applies only to two hate propaganda offences. This defence applies to the Criminal Code offences of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group and wilful promotion of anti-Semitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust. These offences are carefully tailored and have high thresholds, as they target the intentional promotion of hatred.
The amendment to remove the “good faith religious opinion defence” was not in the original bill and has generated diverse views, with some stakeholders expressing concern about potential impacts on freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
To address these concerns, “for greater certainty” clauses were added to the bill to clarify what expression would be captured by the offences in question. The following clause states that nothing in hate propaganda provisions:
. . . 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 made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement.
This “for greater certainty” clause was added following feedback from faith communities to make clear that religious expression, teaching or discussion are not captured by this new change.
To clarify, the expressions captured are statements communicated to intentionally promote hatred or anti-Semitism. Honest or good faith religious expression, debate or teaching would not meet this high standard, which clearly requires the deliberate intention to promote hatred or anti-Semitism.
Furthermore, the bill explicitly clarifies that a statement does not promote hatred because it merely “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” This clearly reinforces that offensive or controversial speech alone does not meet this legal threshold.
The threshold for hate speech in Canada is and remains extremely high and requires the wilful intent to promote hatred. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression remain fully protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and courts continue to interpret and apply these protections.
Given some of the community concerns raised by this bill, I would like to repeat and emphasize the following clarifications: Bill C-9 does not criminalize any religious or faith-based teaching, practice or expression not motivated by the intentional and wilful promotion of hatred.
Bill C-9 does not ban or prevent any peaceful protest, lawful expression, information sharing or advocacy.
Bill C-9 does not create blanket protest restrictions or “bubble zones.”
Bill C-9 does not criminalize mere opinions, disagreements or criticism.
Honourable colleagues, I thank you for your attention, and I invite your careful consideration and support for this important legislation. I believe that Bill C-9 is the most consequential change to hate crime legislation in the past 50-plus years.
The modern realities and impact of hate have changed and continue to challenge the very foundations of our open and pluralistic society. Our laws need to be modernized to deal with the scourge of hate infiltrating our communities, some of which is propagated by foreign entities and nefarious actors in an attempt to sow division and weaken our inclusive democracy.
Bill C-9 comes at a time when our society and the values that underpin it are being harmed by hate in all its forms. When our neighbours hesitate before entering a place of worship or their children’s school out of fear, that is a major concern that we cannot overlook. When a person is targeted simply for who they are, whom they love or what they believe, we must loudly denounce this behaviour. When words are weaponized to incite hatred or violence, we must respond with swift and meaningful consequences.
Bill C-9 offers a path to confront these challenges in a careful and balanced way which aligns with and respects our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It lays the foundation for a safer, more inclusive society. It does so by providing new and carefully tailored tools that target the most harmful and dangerous manifestations of hate, those which cross the line into criminal conduct and threaten the very sense of safety, security and equality that all people in Canada should freely experience.
These laudable values are not in conflict; they support each other. A society where people live in fear of being targeted because of their identity is not a society where rights and freedoms are truly meaningful.
As members of this upper chamber, let’s send a clear message that we are prioritizing the protection of victims and the safety of every community in Canada. Whatever form it takes, hate is incompatible with Canadian values and can never be tolerated.
We must take a clear and unwavering stance for all people in Canada, who expect meaningful action against the pervasive harms faced by victims and their communities. We must do so to uphold the very tenets of our diverse, multicultural and pluralistic society.
For these reasons, I urge you all to vigorously and constructively deliberate, debate and ultimately support the passage of this bill. Canadians are looking to and counting on us to help keep Canada safe and a place free from hate.
Thank you. Meegwetch.