Hon. Kristopher Wells: Honourable senators, I rise today as the Senate sponsor of Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, to speak to the importance of Bill C-9 and why we need to pass this bill without any further delay.

As the Prime Minister said a few days ago, when he announced new measures to combat anti-Semitism, “Pluralism in Canada is not the exception to the framework. Pluralism is the framework.”

He further said that, today, in Canada, pluralism is being tested, as our communities are “. . . being particularly and brutally targeted.”

This is a moment for the kind of leadership that Canadians — and, indeed, people around the world who look to Canada as a beacon of pluralism, inclusion and human dignity — are expecting from us.

Let me begin by providing my own personal reasons why I believe we must move forward with Bill C-9.

My experience with hate crimes spans more than two decades, as a member of the 2SLGBTQ+ community in Alberta, an academic, a researcher and a target of hate myself.

I have helped support the Edmonton Police Service’s Hate Crimes Unit and promote safe spaces for everyone in public spaces, like universities. I have engaged in police training for new recruits and supported restorative justice practices. I have also served as an elected co-chair of the Edmonton Police Service’s Chief’s Community Council, a body composed of representatives from Jewish, Muslim, Asian, Black, Indigenous and 2SLGBTQI+ communities. Through all of it, I have heard one message consistently repeated by Edmontonians who have been targeted: They do not feel safe, do not feel seen and do not feel the law is there to help them at their time of greatest need.

Bill C-9 is our answer to those responses. It is an opportunity for Parliament to say, with unwavering moral clarity and with the strength of criminal law, that our country sees you, Canada will stand with you and hate will not be tolerated in this country.

Honourable colleagues, after hearing approximately 17 hours of testimony, meeting with 50 witnesses and reading over 40 written briefs, as my honourable colleague Senator Senior said in her speech yesterday, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights heard clearly that Canada must protect vulnerable communities from hate while also upholding the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. I believe Bill C-9 does just that.

Let us look directly at what is happening in Canada today. The data is stark and sobering, and this urgent situation demands our full attention.

According to Statistics Canada, police-reported hate crimes have now risen for six consecutive years. From 2018 to 2024, the number of hate crimes in Canada has more than doubled, an increase of 169%. In absolute terms, Canadian police services reported 4,882 hate crimes in 2024.

The rate of hate crime per 100,000 population more than doubled from 2018 to 2024, even as the overall crime rate increased by only 3% over that same period.

While overall crime has remained relatively stable, hate crime has exploded. The single sharpest spike came between 2022 and 2023, when police reported hate crimes increased by 34% in a single year, reaching 4,777 incidents. This was the third sharp increase in four years and demonstrated that the number of police-reported hate crimes has more than doubled since 2019.

These statistics were repeated by police associations and hate crime units whose representatives came to testify at the Human Rights Committee.

As Deputy Chief Robert Johnson said:

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. . . .

We know from the testimony of victims, service providers and law enforcement professionals that hate crimes are amongst the most chronically under-reported offences in Canada. The Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime noted that the clearance rate for non-violent hate crimes stands at just 13.8%, significantly lower than the 30.6% clearance rate for other non-violent crimes.

The RCMP reported that between January 2025 and April 2026 alone, it recorded 994 hate-motivated crimes, of which only 13% were cleared.

These are not merely statistics. Each number represents a person, a family or a community experiencing targeted hate, fear and intimidation.

In 2023, the most frequently reported hate crimes were directed at the Jewish community, the 2SLGBTQI+ community and Black Canadians, accounting for 19%, 18% and 16%, respectively, of all hate crimes reported to police.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes have also surged dramatically. Between 2022 and 2023, they increased by 94%. Hate crimes motivated by race and ethnicity have risen for five consecutive years. South Asian communities saw a 35% increase in 2023, and Arab and West Asian communities saw a 52% increase in that same year.

The 2SLGBTQI+ community has experienced an exponential rise in hatred. Since 2016, anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate crimes have grown by 274%. In 2023, police reported hate crimes targeting sexual orientation spiked to 889 incidents. Violence directed at transgender and gender-diverse Canadians has risen year after year.

Beyond violent crime, the atmosphere of intimidation and harassment is relentless. Drag storytimes are protested; pride flags are burned or removed from municipalities and schools; and 25% of adolescents in Canada have experienced at least one form of cyberbullying, with trans and non-binary adolescents almost twice as likely to be targeted.

While we celebrate the start of Pride Season this month in Canada, we are also reminded that 2SLGBTQI+ individuals are one of the most frequently targeted communities for hate. Pride should be about safety and celebration, not hate and fear.

Colleagues, I want to be direct with you. All of these statistics describe a problem that has fundamentally transformed the way in which people feel safe in this country. We must act now.

The question before us, then, is not whether hate is a serious and growing danger; on that I expect we all strongly agree. The question is whether our existing laws are sufficient to combat hate and whether Bill C-9 addresses these gaps responsibly. I believe it does; the government believes it does.

This legislation honours a commitment made to Canadians, and it responds to sustained calls from victims, affected communities and law enforcement for better, more robust and more flexible tools to address the pressing problem of hate in Canada.

You may be asking what Bill C-9 actually does to address these pressing challenges to both our society and our democracy. How does Bill C-9 address the gap that currently exists in Canada’s criminal justice system?

Well, Bill C-9 would add four new offences to the Criminal Code, each addressing a specific and growing area of harm. First, Canada currently has no stand-alone hate crime offence in the Criminal Code. Hate motivation is addressed only as an aggravating factor at sentencing. This means it is considered as a factor only after a conviction, not as an integral element of the offence itself.

This matters enormously, both symbolically and practically. When hate motivation is treated as a sentencing afterthought rather than a core element of the crime, it sends the wrong message to victims, to perpetrators and to society. It says that the hatred that drove the crime is secondary and that hate in and of itself is not something that Canada’s criminal justice system wants to target.

Bill C-9 corrects this by creating a dedicated hate crime offence, ensuring that when someone wilfully commits a criminal act motivated by hatred against an identifiable group, that motivation is recognized as the very essence of the wrongdoing.

Second, the process for prosecuting existing hate propaganda offences has been unnecessarily over-regulated. Until recently, charges under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code required the consent of the Attorney General — a gatekeeping requirement that, while designed as a safeguard, has also created significant practical barriers for police and prosecutors seeking to hold perpetrators accountable.

In response to concerns raised about possible obstructive or politically charged prosecutions, the bill was thoughtfully amended in the House of Commons to maintain the Attorney General’s consent requirement and to also extend it to the new hate propaganda offence targeting the public display of hate and terrorism symbols. This represents a careful, measured and balanced approach.

Third, communities face a new and urgent form of hate-motivated conduct: the physical obstruction and intimidation of people seeking to access places of worship, community centres, schools and other institutions. Across Canada, synagogues, mosques, churches, community centres and schools serving identifiable groups have been targeted by harassment and intimidation campaigns. People have been physically prevented from dropping their children off at school, visiting elderly parents in care homes or attending religious services, all of which are not criminal offences currently in the law.

Bill C-9 therefore creates two new offences: intimidation to provoke a state of fear to impede access to certain buildings and obstruction or interference to impede access to certain buildings or structures.

Fourth, Bill C-9 codifies — for the first time in statute — a clear and workable definition of hatred, grounded in the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in R. v. Keegstra, a case all of us from Alberta know all too well. By anchoring the definition in established jurisprudence, the bill brings clarity and legal certainty to police, prosecutors and courts, while providing meaningful protection against overreach or overcharging.

There has been a lot of misinformation about what Bill C-9 does and does not do. I believe it is important to reiterate what hatred is already defined as in the Criminal Code: “Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group . . . ” is liable for hatred.

The addition of a clear definition of a hate crime was a critical amendment made in committee in the other place. Along with the addition of the “for greater certainty” clauses, Bill C-9 now makes it clear that simply discrediting, humiliating, hurting or offending are not acts of hate but wilfully promoting acts of hate or hate propaganda against an identifiable group is.

Fifth, the bill prohibits the public display of certain hate and terrorism symbols, including the Nazi hakenkreuz and SS bolts, as well as symbols principally associated with listed terrorist entities where that display is intended to wilfully promote hatred. Defences are preserved for legitimate purposes, including journalism, education and art.

These symbols have been deployed with increasing brazenness in public spaces across Canada, with a devastating effect on the communities they target. The law must speak to this reality.

Colleagues, let me also be clear about what Bill C-9 does not do, as there has been so much mischaracterization in the media and among certain groups. Bill C-9 does not criminalize any religious or faith-based teaching practice or expression that is not motivated by the intentional and wilful promotion of hatred.

Let me be very clear. Bill C-9 does not ban the reading of the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious scripture. It does not ban or prevent any peaceful protest or peaceful assembly. It does not create blanket protest restrictions or bubble zones, and it does not criminalize mere opinions, disagreement or criticism. The legislation is drafted to be precisely targeted. It addresses criminal conduct, and it does so while respecting freedom of religion, freedom of speech and expression and the right to peaceful protest.

Colleagues, I’d also like to address the concerns I know all of us have heard from our constituents over the past few weeks. I understand that, for many Canadians of faith, this removal is a matter of deep concern, including for senators in this chamber. I fully agree that the government can do more to ensure that religious communities in Canada feel free to practise their religion without fear of harm or persecution.

However, the removal of the “good faith” religious opinion or belief defence from section 319(3)(b) does not criminalize faith, as some have been told, nor does it mean that preaching the Bible would be criminalized. To be convicted of wilfully promoting hatred under 319(2) of the Criminal Code, a person must communicate statements in a public place that, I underscore, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

The threshold is extraordinarily high. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted “wilfully” to require the intent to promote hatred, not a mere expression of a view, however controversial, but the active and deliberate incitement of extreme ill will that is meant to dehumanize others. So readings from religious texts, theological discussions, pastoral counselling and sincere expressions of faith-based views on social issues do not meet this high legal threshold.

This defence has existed in the Criminal Code for 56 years, even before the Charter was created, and has never been successfully used. Its intent, when it was introduced decades ago, was to protect sincere theological expression. In practice, however, this defence has created an anomaly — a category of speech that wilfully promotes hatred against identifiable groups but evades criminal accountability solely because it is framed in religious terms.

As the Minister of Justice told the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights:

 . . . the shift of the protections of the religious defence, instead, to a clarifying provision that clearly demonstrates that the good-faith practice of your religion is not a hate crime to begin with, rather than it operating as a defence to what would otherwise be a hate crime, is a more accurate reflection of what the law ought to be in Canada.

He reiterated this point in the Senate Chamber last week when stating clearly that the religious exemption defence suggests:

 . . . that practising your faith is a hate crime that demands the protection of a defence, it recognizes that, by definition, the ordinary practice of faith is not a hate crime to begin with . . . that is a more reflection of what the law should be in this country.

So the fundamental principle of equality before the law demands that the same conduct — the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of Canadians — carries the same legal consequences, regardless of whether it is motivated by religious conviction, political ideology or any other belief system. A person who wilfully promotes hatred against Jewish Canadians because of political extremism can be prosecuted. A person who does the same thing while claiming religious authority has been able to escape accountability entirely. This inconsistency is not a feature of a fair legal system. It is a flaw.

The government introduced a “for greater certainty” clause in the bill to make this explicit. This clause affirms that nothing in the hate propaganda provisions is intended to prohibit or has the effect of prohibiting statements made in good faith and based on a belief in a religious text. The definition of hatred that has been codified in this bill, drawn directly from Keegstra, further constrains prosecutorial overreach by requiring that statements amount to the expressions of detestation and vilification of an identifiable group to a degree that is likely to cause discriminatory treatment.

Honourable colleagues, consider the practical reality. Canada’s existing hate propaganda laws are the most rarely prosecuted in the world. The Attorney General’s consent requirement provides a further layer of protection. These are not laws that are being wielded carelessly. They require a high threshold of conduct, multiple levels of prosecutorial oversight and the full weight of constitutional protections, including the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which did not exist when this section was originally included in the Criminal Code of Canada.

For faith-based communities who have expressed concern, your right to read sacred texts, teach the tenets of your tradition, express sincerely held theological beliefs, counsel your congregations and advocate for your values in the public square are not threatened by this legislation. What is removed is a blanket shield that allowed the deliberate incitement of hatred against Canadians to evade prosecution simply because the speaker wrapped it in religious language. That shield was never intended to protect genuine faith. It was a loophole, and this bill closes it.

I acknowledge, as I did at second reading, that the way this amendment was introduced, which was at the committee stage in the other place, without prior witness testimony significantly directed at that clause, is a matter that the Human Rights Committee took seriously. The committee’s study of this bill has been thorough, inclusive and based on evidence, which this important issue deserved. And I believe that review reinforces rather than undermines the case for passing this bill.

Honourable senators, the breadth of the testimony we heard at the Human Rights Committee — from law enforcement, legal experts, community organizations, academics and faith communities — has only strengthened my conviction that this bill is ready for passage.

Let me briefly share some of what we heard.

From law enforcement, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police described Bill C-9 as a balanced and principled approach to strengthening public safety and ensuring hate crime laws are applied consistently and responsibly. Law enforcement witnesses testified that the creation of a stand-alone hate crime offence will meaningfully change how police investigate and Crown attorneys prosecute hate-motivated crimes.

When hate motivation is built into the offence itself — not merely as an aggravating factor after the fact — police can investigate from the outset with that lens, gather evidence purposefully and present a case that reflects the full nature of the crime. This is a significant and practical benefit for victims and vulnerable communities who want to see the hatred that motivated the crime against them recognized by the justice system.

Prosecution and civil liberties experts noted that the clarity provided by the codified definition of hatred, drawn from R. v. Keegstra, is critically important. Before this bill, the definition was scattered through case law, making it difficult for front-line officers and Crown prosecutors to assess whether conduct met the threshold for charging. A clear statutory definition creates consistency across Canada and reduces the risk of both undercharging and overcharging.

Before I speak to what we heard from representatives of the Black community, I would like to first thank Senators Bernard, Senior and Ince for their leadership in bringing forward thoughtful and meaningful perspectives and amendments to Bill C-9. The testimony we heard at committee from Deborah-Zita Somakoko, who is the President and Founder of the Black Manitobans Chamber of Commerce, and Craig Wellington from the Black Opportunity Fund reminded us all why the noose has such a deep and hurtful impact on the Black community. That symbol does not carry an abstract meaning. It carries a specific history of racial terror directed at Black Canadians and Black communities across this hemisphere. Its inclusion in this legislation is a statement that the Criminal Code acknowledges that history and refuses to ignore it.

From the Jewish community, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs provided testimony that was both powerful and precise. Their witnesses noted that the bill’s definition of hatred mirroring the exact language of R. v. Keegstra ensures both clarity and constitutional robustness. They described how Jewish institutions — schools, synagogues, community centres — have repeatedly been targeted by harassment and intimidation campaigns, and why the new intimidation and obstruction offences are urgently needed. As they said so movingly before the committee, “Nobody should fear dropping their children off at school, visiting an elderly parent or attending religious services.”

Their testimony underscored that the bill has broad support from Jewish organizations across the country and that passing it would send a clear message that Canada will not tolerate hate-motivated violence, intimidation or support for terrorism.

In their words:

. . . while Jews may be the target today, what extremists are aiming at is something bigger, and that is our Canadian way of life.

Representatives of Muslim communities provided testimony, both in support of the core provisions of the bill and with specific concerns about particular aspects. The National Council of Canadian Muslims raised concerns about the specific symbols in the bill, noting that individuals bearing certain Islamic scripture symbols may be inadvertently captured if terrorist groups have appropriated those symbols. These are legitimate concerns and one reason why the “for greater certainty” clauses were designed to address these concerns.

From the 2SLGBTQI+ community, witnesses underscored the severity of the threat faced by our community. Since 2016, anti-2SLGBTQI+ hate crimes have grown by 274%. Trans and non-binary Canadians are facing increased levels of hate and targeted discrimination, both in person and online. Some provincial governments across Canada have also taken actions that have harmed the trans and non-binary community. Community organizations described the effect of living under a constant threat of violence and harassment and what the cumulative effect this trauma has on the community. Bill C-9 signals, in the strongest possible terms, that Canadian society does not sanction this conduct, and we will not allow it to continue.

The new intimidation offence is of particular importance to 2SLGBTQI+ community centres, which have been targeted by organized protest activities designed to prevent members from accessing services and gathering safely. The bill proposes a legal mechanism to address these pressing issues.

The committee heard from First Nations and Métis witnesses who raised critical questions about the application of this legislation to Indigenous communities. The denial of the atrocities of residential schools and the dehumanization of Indigenous Peoples can constitute hate in its own right, and the committee heard calls for the bill’s application to be interpreted and enforced with that history in mind.

Finally, the committee heard from multiple faith communities, and I want to acknowledge that testimony with the seriousness it deserves. The Anglican Church shared their belief that the repeal of the religious defence could create new uncertainty around religious teaching and discussion. Witnesses from the Christian faith community spoke about the effects that can arise from complaints, investigations and legal costs, especially for smaller faith-based communities. These are real concerns that the government has said they take seriously.

I would like to recognize and thank all my colleagues who served on the Human Rights Committee and who studied this bill with the intense scrutiny and dedication that it deserves. The work that our colleagues took on is not to be understated, and it represents the very essence of what Canadians expect of us in this chamber.

Honourable senators, we are at a pivotal moment. The communities that are being targeted by hate in this country are watching what we do in this chamber. They are counting on us. They need to know parliamentarians stand with them, that their safety is a priority and that Parliament will not allow hate to grow unchecked in our communities.

I have heard from parents who are afraid to send their children to school. I have heard from elderly Jewish Canadians who hesitate to attend synagogue. I have heard from transgender Canadians who fear leaving their homes. I have heard from Muslim Canadians who feel the hostile gaze of strangers and wonder whether they are safe. I have heard from Black Canadians who are exhausted by the relentlessness of hatred directed at them. These are not abstract concerns. This is their lived reality in 2026.

There are those who would argue that this bill goes too far. There are others who argue it does not go far enough. There are those who fear that some of its provisions will be misused, and those whose primary concern is that it will not be used enough. These debates are robust and healthy. They reflect the complexity of the issues at stake, and they are the reason that Parliament has spent months studying this legislation carefully.

Honourable senators, perfect cannot be the enemy of good. The communities being targeted by hate crimes in Canada have waited long enough. They have watched for years as hate crimes have doubled, as intimidation has grown bolder, as symbols of genocide and terror have been brandished in public with impunity. They have been told that the law will protect them, and they have seen the law fall short. This bill does not solve every problem. It is, as witnesses before the Human Rights Committee rightly noted, not a panacea. But it is a meaningful, principled, measured and constitutionally grounded step forward, and it is needed now.

Bill C-9 will not end hatred — no law can do that — hatred lives in the human heart and it is challenged ultimately by inclusive education, the recognition and celebration of culture, building welcoming and respectful communities and through the long, slow, yet unwavering work of building the kind of country where every person belongs. Every Canadian deserves acceptance and safety.

But the law matters. It matters because it sets the standard. It matters because it tells victims that their suffering is recognized and that the state stands beside them. It matters because it tells perpetrators that there are consequences for choosing to act on hatred. And it matters because it tells every Canadian, whatever their identity, faith or background, that they are equal in the eyes of the law and equally deserving of protection. This is the Canada we believe in.

This chamber has a proud tradition of protecting minority rights. The Senate was designed, in part, to be a check on the tyranny of the majority, to ensure that the rights and dignity of those who are outnumbered are not sacrificed for political convenience. Today, I am asking this chamber to fulfill that promise and that purpose.

Let us pass Bill C-9. Let us send a message to every Canadian who has been targeted for who they are that they are not alone, that this Parliament stands with them and that in Canada, hatred does not win. I urge all honourable senators to support this bill.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.