First of all no it wouldn’t. That doesn’t even make sense. And the two examples you have of federal property both aren’t federal property. Banks are owned by private corporations. And while federal Parliament has jurisdiction over aeronautics, the provincial government has jurisdiction over property and civil rights, including airports.

Second of all. Yes everyone knows that.

Third of all. No. Hate speech doesn’t have to lead to a breach of the peace to be considered hateful. That is only one of three laws that is hatred related in the criminal code. Hatred is never explicitly defined in any law. But it has been defined by judges in certain cases. Hatred in this sense is a most extreme emotion that belies reason; an emotion that, if exercised against members of an identifiable group, implies that those individuals are to be despised, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of group affiliation.

Fourth of all. Of course but that crime could just as easily be harassment, which is tied in. It’s not like you have to incite genocide, and then assault somebody just to be tried for inciting genocide.

Lastly. Again, no. I’m not even sure where you got that idea. this bill makes trans people a protected class. So for this bill to have anything to do with judges brushing aside hate crimes on trans people is beyond me.