Bill C-9, recently introduced by the Government of Canada, proposes significant changes to how hate-motivated crimes and hate propaganda are addressed under federal law, changes that could have important implications for Jewish Canadians and other communities targeted by hate.

The proposed legislation was the focus of a recent webinar hosted by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), the Jewish Federation of Ottawa’s advocacy partner, alongside Jewish advocacy organizations from across Canada. The discussion brought together legal experts and scholars to examine what the bill would do and how it may be applied in practice.

If passed, Bill C-9 would overhaul Canada’s existing hate-propaganda framework by removing the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent before launching hate-propaganda prosecutions. The bill would also introduce several new offences, including the willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group through the public display of certain symbols.

In addition, the legislation would create a specific federal hate-crime designation for offences motivated by hatred and establish new penalties for intimidating individuals to prevent them from accessing places of religious worship or other sites primarily used by identifiable groups. It would also make it an offence to intentionally obstruct or interfere with a person’s lawful access to those spaces.

Experts on the panel explained, however, that what this bill doesn’t do is hinder the right to freedom of religion or freedom of conscience, since that is protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“There’s been a great deal of misinformation about the legislation and whether it can be weaponized against the Jewish community,” said Mark Sandler, a criminal defence lawyer who has previously served on B’nai Brith League of Human Rights. “There are some ways in which this legislation could stand against antisemitism in small but significant ways.”

Sandler discussed how the input given during the readings of the bill may also add provisions for cases that involve symbology or any sort of glorification of terrorist groups. Importantly, he also stated that concerns related to people expressing Zionist points of view or wearing a Magen David necklace are unfounded when it comes to how this legislation will be enforced.

Mark Freiman, an attorney and public servant who formally served as President of the Canadian Jewish Congress, weighed in on how religious freedom is constitutionally protected and that legislation cannot interfere with this right.

“The Constitution prompts legislation, not the other way around,” he said. “You cannot pass legislation that attempts to interfere with [the Constitution]. ‘Religious exemptions’ is not where protection of religious freedom comes from.”

When questions arose about the lack of enforcement of current legislation and how new legislation would play into that, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger talked about how conversations with the police and politicians are a work in progress.

“A lot of work is still being done in continuing dialogue with government and justice partners,” he said. “Bill C-9 is a product of this dialogue. The legislation would give additional tools to law enforcement.”

Freiman agreed, “there are gaps in current law, but Bill C-9 is an excellent start.”

However, many scholars on the panel agreed that there is a lack of symbols to be banned that can be used to incite hate.

“The legislation doesn’t go far enough in addressing the willful display of some symbols, which should be a freestanding offence,” said Sandler. “Any group using signs from terrorist organizations should be held accountable.”

“While the bill is a necessary amendment to the Criminal Code in that it protects many minority groups, there are certainly gaps that need to be filled,” said Richard Robertson from B’nai Brith. “For instance, the sieg heil isn’t one of the actions that would be outlawed, which should be revisited.” 

Robertson said there is room for optimism as a similar amendment was made to Australia’s Criminal Code and has had a positive effect on the way hate crime investigations are treated there.

Bill C-9, while having similar provisions about obstructing or harassing people entering houses of worship, should not be confused with bubble legislation. The bill is being described as “adjunctive” to bubble legislation, meaning they go together, but are ultimately used for different purposes.

“Bubble bylaws are complimentary and go further than criminal law,” said criminal defence lawyer Amanda Ross. “They have a broader application and are easier to enforce and prosecute.”

Ross discussed the example of the city of Vaughan, which has enacted bubble legislation, and how it has been successfully enforced there. Unlike Bill C-9, bubble legislation requires heavier involvement of municipal and provincial lawmakers.

Lastly, when asked about how everyday religious practice would be affected, all the scholars reiterated that freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are already protected by the Charter.

“The Charter defends religious freedom, not this bill,” said Freiman. “Religious texts, beliefs, and more are already protected.”

“As for Zionism, we continue to work to inform judges and politicians that it is neither a political nor inherently anti-Palestinian ideology,” said Neuberger. “It is also protected under the tenets of freedom of conscience.”

At the end of the webinar, all the panelists agreed that Bill C-9 is a step in the right direction, even though there is much more work to be done in confronting rising antisemitism. 

For those who would like to watch the webinar and learn about what this bill entails, click here.