Submission to the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) on Bill C-9

Bill C-9: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

Submitted by: Dr. Benjamin Roebuck, Ombudsperson
Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime

October 2025

THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL OMBUDSPERSON FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME (OFOVC)

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime is an independent resource for victims and survivors in Canada. We are a federal agency operating at arm’s length from the Department of Justice and reporting directly to the Minister of Justice as a Special Advisor.

• Victims and survivors contact our Office to learn more about their rights under federal laws, about federal services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agencies or legislation dealing with victims.
• Part of our mandate is to ensure that policymakers are aware of systemic issues that negatively affect victims and survivors of crime and that the Government understands its obligations under the quasi-constitutional provisions of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR).

Thank you to the Chair and Committee for the invitation. I regret not being able to attend in person, as our Office prepares to release its report titled Rethinking Justice for Survivors of Sexual Violence, stemming from a national systemic investigation into survivors’ experiences throughout the criminal justice system.

CONTEXT

We commend the Government for introducing Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which would amend the Criminal Code to:

• Create a specific hate crime offence, and codify the definition of ‘hatred’
• Remove the requirement for Attorney General’s consent for hate propaganda charges
• Criminalize intimidation and obstruction preventing access to religious, cultural, and community spaces
• Prohibit public display of hate or terrorist symbols intended to promote hatred

In October 2024, our Office released Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime^[1]. Targeted surveys were completed by 110 police officers and 77 victim service providers across Canada. The report outlines key considerations and recommendations to improve access to justice for victims of hate crime.

KEY FINDINGS

1. Underreporting to police remains a significant barrier. Victims of hate crime face immense challenges in coming forward. Fear of retaliation, systemic racism, and mistrust of law enforcement discourage reporting. When reports are made, police in our study estimated only 35% of victims access needed support services. The disconnect between reporting and support highlights the lack of a cohesive system to guide victims from incident to resolution. Third party reporting through trusted organizations or victim services is a promising practice for gathering more accurate statistics, reporting to police and making referrals.
2. Specialized resources are limited. Only 28% of police respondents reported having a dedicated hate crime unit, and nearly half of those units consist of a single officer. We heard that hate crime units have greater access to specialized training on recognizing and investigating hate crime and are better equipped to conduct meaningful community outreach and education.
3. Definitions matter. We need a clear definition of hate crime in the Criminal Code to improve investigations. Police reported difficulty navigating inconsistent definitions, distinguishing hate speech from freedom of expression, and identifying hate motivation.
4. Training gaps persist. Police called for practical training on hate crime investigation techniques, as most officers have limited case experience. Police recommended hybrid learning opportunities and inter-agency workshops led by experienced hate crime units. Victim service organizations also wanted specialized training but struggle with funding and resource constraints.
5. Standalone hate crime offence broadly supported. 77% of police and 82% of victim services said it would be helpful or very helpful to have a standalone hate crime offence, but respondents emphasized the need for training and resources to ensure effectiveness. 73% of police respondents expressed that requirements for Attorney General consent would introduce barriers to timely prosecution.

POSITION

As Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, informed by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, I fully support the goal of Bill C-9 as an important step toward recognizing and responding to the harms caused by hate-motivated crime in Canada. Hate crimes harm not only individual victims, but also entire communities that share their identity or faith.

Support for the Hate-Motivated Offence and Definition of ‘Hatred’

A specific hate-motivated offence will strengthen Canada’s ability to identify, track, and prosecute hate crimes consistently and transparently. Recognizing hate motivation at the outset of an investigation affirms the justice system’s acknowledgment of harm and helps victims feel seen and supported.

We also support codifying a statutory definition of ‘hatred,’ to ensure clarity and consistency across jurisdictions.

CONSIDERATIONS

Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR)

The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR)^[2] provides key protections for victims of hate crime through the right to information, protection, participation, to seek restitution, and to file a complaint. The CVBR is quasi-constitutional, and these rights are important levers to strengthen access to justice for victims of hate crime. However, current limitations reduce its practical impact for those targeted by hate.

Right to information, a gateway right.

• The CVBR guarantees victims the right to receive information about the status and outcome of investigations and legal proceedings, as well as programs and services. Yet this right is only available upon request, leaving many victims without critical updates.
• In hate-motivated cases, where underreporting is high and trust in institutions is low, this gap deepens isolation and limits access to supports.
• Strengthening sections 6, 7, and 8 of the CVBR to require proactive communication is essential to make this right meaningful in practice.

Right to protection.

• The CVBR grants victims the right to have their security and privacy considered during investigations and proceedings, including measures to protect against retaliation and to request testimonial aids. Without enforceable measures, protections remain inconsistent and reactive, rather than systemic.

Right to participation.

• Victims of hate crime have the right to convey their views and have those views considered. In these cases, meaningful participation not only includes victim impact statements (VIS), but also community impact statements (CIS) which describe the collective nature of the harm. Available data shows CISs are underused. Prosecutors and court-based victim services should actively inquire into CIS availability and support their preparation.

Right to request restitution.

• Victims of hate have a right to request restitution. Hate crimes can impose distinct economic costs, including security expenses, graffiti removal, and property damage.

Enforceability matters.

• Victims currently lack an effective remedy when CVBR rights are denied. Without enforcement, rights awarded to victims of hate are dependent on the goodwill of criminal justice actors. Deleting sections 17, 28, and 29 and strengthening s. 6–8 to require automatic information would ensure victims of hate crime can fully exercise their rights.

Community Impact Statements and Collective Harm

Community Impact Statements (CIS) under s. 722.2 of the Criminal Code provide courts with structured evidence of collective harm, supporting denunciation and deterrence proportionate to the broader harm caused by hate‑motivated offences. CISs add to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system by giving affected communities a formal voice.

Unlike Victim Impact Statements (VIS), CISs capture impacts on communities that share the victim’s identity – such as fear, exclusion, re-traumatization, and disruption of cultural or religious practices. These statements help judges to:

• Contextualize harm beyond the immediate victim
• Recognize that hate crimes target entire identity groups
• Inform proportional sentencing that reflects collective impact.

Empirical use of VIS/CIS in hate‑motivated cases (2007–2023)^[3][4][5]

Based on our analysis of 116 Canadian decisions (Canadian Race Relations Foundation and Western Law) where s. 718.2 (a)(i) was considered, we found:

• 38 cases referenced a Victim Impact Statement (VIS)
• 8 cases referenced a Community Impact Statement (CIS).
• CIS usage increased noticeably in 2020–2023^[6]
• CISs were most often observed in offences against religious or cultural spaces (430 (4.1)) and in hate‑propaganda matters (s. 319).

CIS use is increasing but remains limited. Greater awareness of this provision would enhance legitimacy and public confidence in the justice system.

Expanding the Use of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice (RJ) offers a complementary path to accountability and repair for victims and survivors of crime. Under the CVBR, victims have the right to be informed of available services, including restorative justice programs.

Emerging Canadian support.

The Department of Justice’s 2023 report, “Hate Crimes in Canada,” found that federal, provincial and territorial victim services called for restorative justice programs to address ongoing hate. Survey respondents identified RJ as a promising approach to “break the cycle of hate” by promoting healing through respectful communication, community input, and offender accountability.^[7]

International comparators.

In the United States, researcher Livia Luan notes that traditional punitive approaches to hate crime are often ineffective, urging U.S. advocates to consider promising practices from the United Kingdom (UK).^[8]

Recent initiatives in the UK such as Restore DiverCity, Why me?, and Restore Respect, illustrate this promise. Data from the Sussex Hate Crime Project show that 61% of LGBT and Muslim respondents preferred restorative justice over enhanced sentencing.^[9] These initiatives show that well-facilitated restorative dialogues can improve victims’ emotional well-being, reduce anger and fear, and help prevent recurring hate incidents.^[10]

Policy direction for Canada.

Evidence from Canada^[11] and abroad suggests that further study of RJ’s use for victims of hate in Canada is worth exploring. RJ, when voluntary, trauma-informed, and supported by trained practitioners, offers a promising approach to strengthening access to justice for victims of hate and fostering broader dialogue on social inclusion.

Looking Ahead: Addressing Hate Online

Hate does not stop at physical boundaries. Digital spaces amplify hate’s reach and impact, often fuelling offline harm. While Bill C-9 addresses critical gaps in the Criminal Code, future policy must ensure protections and accountability extend to online environments, where hateful content can radicalize, intimidate, and retraumatize communities.

People often say things online that would not be permissible in person, including explicit, death threats targeting identity groups. Freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of democracy, but better tools are needed to ensure people of all ages can use the internet safely. Any future proposal to address these issues must balance expression, privacy and protection through collaboration, careful consideration of fundamental rights, and oversight mechanisms.

 

[1] Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (2024). Strengthening Access to Justice for Victims of Hate Crime. https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/publications/specialreports-rapportsspeciaux/hatecrimecrimehaineux.html

[2] Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, S.C. 2015, c.13, s.2.https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-23.7/page-1.html

[3] Counts are based on the OFOVC’s analysis of the CRRF/Western “Case Chart” (2007–2023). Entries in the column “Was there a Victim Impact Statement (VIS) or Community Impact Statement (CIS)?” were reviewed and grouped into consistent categories (VIS only, CIS only, both, neither). Cases marked simply “Yes,” without specifying type, were categorized as VIS only to maintain consistency across entries.

[4] Canadian Race Relations Foundation & Western University, (2024). Hate Indicators: A Canadian Hate Crime Case Law Research Tool. https://crrf-fcrr.ca/research-and-reports/hate-crime-case-law-research-tool/.

[5] These decisions represent a curated set by CRRF/Western Law and do not constitute an exhaustive list of all Canadian hate-motivation sentencing decisions.

[6] This trend aligns with the enactment of s. 722.2 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes CISs for all offences.

[7] Department of Justice Canada. (2023). Hate Crimes in Canada.https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rd16-rr16/p1.html

[8] Luan, L. (2022). Making victims whole again: Using restorative justice to heal hate crime victims, reform offenders, and strengthen communities. Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 37(1), 161-210.

[9] Walters, M. (2020). Developments in the use of restorative justice for hate crime. International Journal of Restorative Justice, 3(3), 446-457.

[10] Ibid

[11] Sulah, Community Justice Initiatives. (n.d.). Identity-based harm dialogue. See: https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local-news/restorative-justice-program-aims-to-curb-rise-in-local-hate-crimes-5743017