Via email: JUST@parl.gc.ca
The Honourable Marc Miller, M.P. P.C .
Chair, Committee on Justice and Human Rights
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6A
Dear Mr. Miller:
Re: Bill C-9: Combatting Hate Act
I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association’s Criminal Justice and Sexual and Gender Diversity Alliance Sections (CBA Sections) about Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which was introduced on September 19, 2025.
The CBA is a national association of over 40,000 members, including lawyers, law students, notaries and academics, and our mandate includes seeking improvement in the law and the administration of justice. The Criminal Justice Section consists of a balance of Crown and defence counsel from every part of the country. SAGDA works to address the needs and concerns of two-spirited, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (2SLGBTQI+) people in the CBA.
The main objective of Bill C-9 is to address the rise in hate crimes in our communities by amending the Criminal Code to create additional crimes motivated by hate towards identifiable groups, specifically by:
- Making it a crime to intimidate and obstruct people from accessing places of worship, as well as schools, community centres and other places primarily used by an identifiable group;
- Making hate motivated crime a specific offence, ensuring such conduct is more clearly denounced and that offenders are held accountable; and
- Making it a crime to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols in public.
The CBA Sections recognize and support the rights of historically oppressed groups. There are concerns that despite the protective intent behind hate offence legislation, its application may produce unintended consequences, particularly in light of the historical over-policing of marginalized communities. The following issues are raised by the CBA Section:
Making Hate Motivated Crime a Specific Offence
We are concerned that the definition of “hatred”, while derived from the case law, is confusing. In particular, the proposed subsection (3) “Clarification” clause includes confusing language that has been taken out of context from the source case law.1 Hate crimes will by their very nature discredit, humiliate, and offend victims. By stating that discrediting, humiliating, and offending alone is insufficient to meet the definition of hatred, we again think this clarification clause confuses rather than clarifies the definition.
Intimidation and Obstruction of People Accessing Places
We are concerned that the creation of this offence, as currently drafted, is problematic. We acknowledge that it is important that individuals be able to access such places unobstructed and without fear.
However, we anticipate that this offence may be prosecuted in the context of an assembly/protest taking place at or near one of the proposed places set out. The Charter guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under section 2(c). The creation of this offence has the potential to trammel on this freedom if the actus reus of the offence is not clearly defined.
In particular, the meanings of the words “obstruction” and “interference” are very broad. It is not clear at what point a person, or people’s words or actions would constitute an obstruction and interference on the face of the amendments. Despite an attempt to clarify the meaning by stating that “communicating information” would not constitute an offence, we are of the view that this clarification is inadequate. The actus reus constituting an obstruction and/or interference needs to be more clearly defined, especially considering the potential engagement of an accused person’s section 2 Charter rights.
Hate Symbols
The CBA Sections note two concerns with this amendment. First, we are concerned about the potential for this offence to impact the right of freedom of speech. We suggest that the mens rea of this offence be more specifically curtailed to the display of such symbols “for the purpose of promoting hatred” so that the legislation only captures the display of such symbols in circumstances intended to promote hatred against identifiable groups. This language will ensure that this new offence is not overly broad in what it captures.
Further, we note that only one specific hate symbol that will be captured by this crime is set out clearly in the Criminal Code. Considering the potential to impact one’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of speech, it would be more prudent to clearly set out all terrorism or hate symbols that would be captured in the Criminal Code, rather than referencing a regulation that will be updated on an ongoing basis.
We hope these observations will be helpful. The CBA Sections are available to provide technical drafting assistance.
Yours truly,
(original letter signed by Julie Terrien for Melanie Webb and Kyla M. Lee)
Melanie Webb
Chair, Criminal Justice Section
Kyla M. Lee
Chair, Sexual and Gender Diversity Alliance Section
End Notes
1 The source case law of the definition is in the case of Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal, 2013 SCC 11, at para. 41:
In my view, "detestation" and "vilification" aptly describe the harmful effect that the Code seeks to eliminate. Representations that expose a target group to detestation tend to inspire enmity and extreme ill-will against them, which goes beyond mere disdain or dislike. Representations vilifying a person or group will seek to abuse, denigrate or delegitimize them, to render them lawless, dangerous, unworthy or unacceptable in the eyes of the audience. Expression exposing vulnerable groups to detestation and vilification goes far beyond merely discrediting, humiliating or offending the victims.