Criminal Ban on Residential School Denialism

Summary#

This bill would change Canada’s Criminal Code to add a new hate‑propaganda offence tied to the Indian residential school system. It targets non‑private statements that wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying, justifying, or misrepresenting facts about that system (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)). It also adds specific defences, keeps Attorney General consent for charges, and allows courts to forfeit property used to commit the offence.

• Creates a new crime for public statements that wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous peoples through residential‑school denialism or distortion (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
• Sets penalties up to 2 years in prison for an indictable offence, or punishment on summary conviction (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)(a)–(b)).
• Provides defences, including truth, good‑faith religious opinion, public‑interest discussion with reasonable belief in truth, and good‑faith purposes to remove hatred (Bill s.1, 319(3.11)).
• Requires Attorney General consent before prosecution (Bill s.1, 319(6)).
• Permits forfeiture of items used to commit the offence, with limits on seizing communication facilities (Bill s.1, 319(4)–(5)).
• Defines “Indigenous peoples” by reference to Constitution Act, 1982 s.35(2) (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) (Bill s.1, 319(7)).

What it means for you#

• Households and individuals

  • Public statements, including online posts, speeches, and publications, could lead to charges if they wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying, justifying, or misrepresenting facts about residential schools (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
  • Private conversations are excluded by the text (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
  • If charged and convicted, penalties can include up to 2 years in prison (indictable) or a lesser summary‑conviction sentence (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)(a)–(b)).
  • Property used to commit the offence (for example, devices or materials) may be ordered forfeited to the province on conviction (Bill s.1, 319(4)).

• Educators, researchers, journalists, and advocates

  • The bill lists defences for truth, good‑faith religious opinion, good‑faith efforts to remove hatred, and public‑interest discussion with a reasonable belief in truth (Bill s.1, 319(3.11)).
  • The defences apply only if the underlying conduct fits the offence and you can meet the defence conditions in court (Bill s.1, 319(3.11)).

• News, social media, and publishers

  • Content that wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples through residential‑school denialism or distortion may expose authors to criminal liability; platforms may receive law‑enforcement requests tied to investigations.
  • Certain communication facilities have protections from seizure, by cross‑reference to existing Criminal Code limits (Bill s.1, 319(5)).

• Indigenous peoples and communities

  • The bill focuses on hatred promoted through statements about the residential school system, aimed at reducing such hate in public spaces (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).

• Police, prosecutors, and courts

  • No prosecution can start without the consent of the Attorney General (Bill s.1, 319(6)).
  • If Bill C‑9 (Combatting Hate Act) also becomes law, related cross‑references for forfeiture, seizure, and consent will update automatically (Coordinating amendment).

• Timing

  • The bill sets no delayed start date. It would take effect on coming into force after passage.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No explicit appropriations or funding are included in the bill text (Bill passim).
• Creates a new Criminal Code offence; any enforcement, prosecution, and court costs would be handled within existing systems. Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Targets a specific pathway for hatred: denial, downplaying, or justification of the residential school system used to wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous peoples (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
• Keeps high legal thresholds: the offence requires “wilful” promotion of hatred and excludes private conversations (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
• Protects legitimate discourse with explicit defences for truth, public interest with reasonable belief in truth, good‑faith religious opinion, and efforts to remove hatred (Bill s.1, 319(3.11)).
• Adds safeguards against overreach by requiring Attorney General consent before any charge proceeds (Bill s.1, 319(6)).
• Aligns penalties with existing hate‑propaganda provisions, up to 2 years’ imprisonment on indictment, which proponents say can deter harmful conduct (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)(a)).

Opponents' View#

• Risks to free expression: terms like “downplaying” or “misrepresenting facts” may be viewed as vague, potentially chilling debate, research, or commentary, despite listed defences (Bill s.1, 319(2.01), 319(3.11)).
• Overlap with existing law: Canada already bans wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups; critics may argue this narrower offence is redundant and could create confusion (Criminal Code s.319(2); Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
• Enforcement uncertainty: the bill does not define “private conversation,” which may create uncertainty for online messaging or semi‑private forums (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
• Proof challenges: showing that a statement both concerns residential schools and “wilfully” promotes hatred may be difficult, limiting impact even after enactment (Bill s.1, 319(2.01)).
• Property forfeiture could capture devices or materials used to commit the offence, raising concerns about breadth and collateral effects on publishers or contributors (Bill s.1, 319(4)–(5)).
• Centralized charging decisions: requiring Attorney General consent may introduce delays or politicization in deciding which cases proceed (Bill s.1, 319(6)).