Canada Tightens Hate Crime and Symbol Laws

Summary#

This bill amends Canada’s Criminal Code to change how hate-related crimes are charged and punished. It removes a consent step before charges, creates new offences for hate symbols and blocking access to certain places, and establishes a stand‑alone “hate crime” offence that increases maximum penalties when another crime is motivated by hatred. It also adds defences to protect legitimate journalism, education, religion, and art, and defines “hatred” more precisely.

• Removes the Attorney General consent requirement for hate propaganda prosecutions (s. 318(3) repealed; s. 319(4)-(6) replaced).
• Bans wilfully promoting hatred by publicly displaying certain hate or terrorism‑linked symbols, with defences for legitimate purposes (s. 319(2.2), (3.2)).
• Creates a stand‑alone hate crime offence that raises maximum penalties when any federal offence is motivated by hatred based on listed factors (s. 320.1001(1), (5)).
• Makes it a crime to intimidate people to impede, or to intentionally obstruct, access to places used for religious worship, by identifiable groups, schools/daycares, seniors’ residences, or cemeteries (s. 423.3).
• Allows forfeiture of items used to commit hate propaganda offences (s. 319(4)) and clarifies that mere offence or humiliation is not hate promotion (s. 319(6), (7)).
• Comes into force 30 days after Royal Assent (Coming-into-force clause).

What it means for you#

• Households and individuals

  • Displaying in a public place the Nazi swastika or SS bolts, or symbols tied to “listed entities” (the federal terrorism list), to wilfully promote hatred becomes a crime. Penalty: up to 2 years in jail on indictment, or summary conviction (s. 319(2.2), (2.3), s. 83.01(1)).
  • “Hatred” now means detestation or vilification, stronger than dislike. A statement is not hate promotion only because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends (s. 319(6), (7)).
  • Property used to commit hate propaganda offences can be seized and forfeited after conviction (s. 319(4)).

• Faith communities, cultural organizations, schools/daycares, seniors’ residences, cemeteries

  • Police can charge people who intimidate others to create fear to impede access, or who intentionally obstruct/interfere with access without lawful authority. Penalty: up to 10 years in jail on indictment, or summary conviction (s. 423.3(1)-(3)).
  • Peaceful presence to obtain or share information remains allowed (s. 423.3(4)).

• Protesters and advocacy groups

  • Blocking entrances or intimidating people to keep them from entering covered sites can lead to criminal charges (s. 423.3(1)-(3)).
  • Attending near these places “for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information” is not an offence (s. 423.3(4)).
  • Public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols to wilfully promote hatred risks criminal charges; legitimate journalism, education, religion, or art remains a defence if not contrary to the public interest (s. 319(2.2), (3.2)).

• Victims of hate‑motivated offences

  • If someone commits any federal offence against you and the crime is motivated by hatred based on listed factors (race, religion, language, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, etc.), prosecutors can charge the stand‑alone hate crime. Maximum penalties increase by tier, up to life in the most serious cases (s. 320.1001(1), (5)).

• Media, educators, artists, museums

  • You may display prohibited symbols for a legitimate purpose related to journalism, education, religion, or art, if not contrary to the public interest. Good‑faith efforts to point out hateful material for removal are also protected (s. 319(3.2)).

• Police, prosecutors, and courts

  • No Attorney General consent is required to start prosecutions for hate propaganda (s. 318(3) repealed; s. 319(4)-(6) replaced).
  • The new access‑intimidation offence is added to the list that can support wiretap warrants (s. 183(lxxi.2)), can trigger DNA order eligibility (secondary designated offence) (s. 487.04(c)(xi.02)), and is listed for specific bail condition provisions (s. 515(4.1)(b.12); s. 515(4.3)(b)).
  • When charging the stand‑alone hate crime, if hate motivation is not proven but the underlying offence is, courts can convict on the included offence (s. 662(7)); the court must endorse the record to show the included offence proved (s. 726.2).
  • Effective date: 30 days after Royal Assent (Coming-into-force clause).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or new funding streams are in the bill text. Enforcement, prosecution, court, and correctional impacts: Data unavailable.
• Administrative and training costs for policing and justice system: Data unavailable.
• Any forfeited property is disposed of as the provincial Attorney General directs (s. 319(4)).

Proponents' View#

• Removes a bottleneck by ending the Attorney General consent step for hate propaganda cases, which could enable faster and more consistent charging decisions (s. 318(3) repealed; s. 319(4)-(6) replaced).
• Targets intimidation from hate symbols by banning public display of the Nazi swastika/SS bolts and symbols of listed terrorist entities when used to wilfully promote hatred (s. 319(2.2)); includes clear defences for legitimate journalism, education, religion, or art (s. 319(3.2)).
• Clarifies the legal threshold by defining “hatred” as detestation or vilification and stating that mere offence or humiliation is not enough, helping protect lawful expression (s. 319(6), (7)).
• Establishes a stand‑alone hate crime offence with higher maximum penalties tied to the seriousness of the underlying crime, up to life for the gravest offences (s. 320.1001(1), (5)).
• Protects access to religious, cultural, educational, seniors’, and burial sites by criminalizing intimidation to impede access and intentional obstruction, with penalties up to 10 years (s. 423.3(1)-(3)), while preserving space to share information peacefully (s. 423.3(4)).

Opponents' View#

• Free expression concerns: tying criminal liability to symbol display may chill speech or artistic expression; reliance on “legitimate purpose” and “public interest” defences could be uncertain in practice (s. 319(2.2), (3.2)). Assumes courts will apply these defences consistently.
• Scope and notice issues: the symbol ban reaches symbols “principally used by, or principally associated with,” listed terrorist entities; the federal list can change over time, which may create uncertainty for the public (s. 319(2.2)(a); s. 83.01(1)). Assumes the public can track evolving designations.
• New stand‑alone hate crime may duplicate or complicate existing sentencing practices by requiring proof of motive beyond a reasonable doubt and could lengthen trials (s. 320.1001(1)). Assumes proving motivation will be resource‑intensive.
• Penalty escalation risks: setting higher maximums up to life based on motivation could encourage charge‑stacking and increase incarceration exposure compared to charging only the underlying offence (s. 320.1001(5)). Assumes prosecutors will routinely add the new charge.
• Protest‑related risks: the new obstruction and intimidation offences around access to protected places may capture some protest tactics; the “communicating information” exception may be interpreted narrowly (s. 423.3(1)-(4)). Assumes enforcement will not over‑rely on the exception.
• Oversight trade‑off: removing Attorney General consent may reduce centralized review and lead to uneven charging across regions (s. 318(3) repealed; s. 319(4)-(6) replaced). Assumes the consent process previously ensured consistent oversight.