This House of Commons committee meeting on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious or cultural places, heard from eight witnesses across two panels.
Deputy Chief Nicole Chapdelaine of the Edmonton Police Service strongly supported all of Bill C-9's provisions, arguing that a stand-alone hate crime offence with a clear national definition would improve data collection, enable proactive policing, and build public trust. She stated that removing Attorney General consent for hate propaganda offences would allow police to act more swiftly and that the new intimidation and obstruction offences would give officers clearer guidance, countering claims that existing laws are sufficient.
Derek Ross of the Christian Legal Fellowship affirmed the goal of combatting hatred but raised three primary constitutional concerns: the definition of "hatred" in the bill is imprecise and should explicitly incorporate the Supreme Court's test from *Keegstra* and *Whatcott*; the new motive offence should focus on intent to incite hatred rather than internal motivations; and the bill should explicitly protect good-faith discussion of beliefs and opinions, retaining the existing defences in subsection 319(3). He disagreed with the removal of Attorney General consent, arguing it provides a necessary filter.
Timothy McSorley of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group called for Bill C-9 to be withdrawn and revisited, focusing his critique on the new offence for displaying symbols of listed terrorist entities. He argued the provision is redundant, grants police overly broad discretionary powers that could chill legitimate protest, and is built on a flawed and secretive terrorist-listing process that raises constitutional concerns.
John Sikkema of the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada argued that Bill C-9 risks blurring the established definition of hatred and creating a tool for ideological censorship. He recommended the committee either remove the bill's definition and clarification clause to preserve the common-law standard or amend them to clearly reflect the stringent tests from *Keegstra* and *Whatcott*, and he argued that Attorney General consent should be retained as a safeguard.
Marcel-Olivier Nadeau and Nicholas St-Jacques of the Barreau du Québec stated that while Bill C-9 is more nuanced than its predecessor, fundamental issues remain. They recommended adopting the *Keegstra* definition of hatred for the criminal context, reconsidering the new stand-alone hate crime offence as it creates a parallel and potentially ineffective prosecution regime, and carefully reviewing the new intimidation and obstruction offences to ensure they do not unduly infringe on charter rights.
Vijaykumar Jain of Canadian Hindus for Harmony raised two concerns: first, that the bill's use of "Nazi swastika" associates the sacred religious symbol "swastika" with Nazis, and he requested the removal of that wording and the addition of an explicit religious exception as done in Victoria, Australia; second, that government communications about the bill address Hinduphobia alongside anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and homophobia.
Noah Shack of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs welcomed Bill C-9 but urged amendments to maximize its impact, including: adding the stand-alone hate crime offence to the list triggering reverse onus at bail hearings; retaining the existing hate mischief provision; ensuring the definition of hatred mirrors the Supreme Court's test; and considering alternatives to the complete removal of Attorney General consent, such as clear guidelines and transparency requirements. He also recommended adding a wilful promotion of terrorism offence.
The committee also heard brief procedural exchanges and a motion, but the substantive testimony focused on the witnesses' analyses and recommendations regarding the bill's provisions.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.