New Crime Targets Residential School Denial

Summary#

This bill would change the Criminal Code to add a new crime. It would make it illegal to wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying, justifying, or misrepresenting facts about the Indian residential school system, when doing so in public (s.319(2.2)). It also sets out specific defences, allows seizure of items used to commit the offence on conviction, and requires the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute.

• Creates a new hate promotion offence tied to public statements about residential schools (s.319(2.2)).
• Sets maximum jail time of up to 2 years for an indictable offence; also allows summary conviction (s.319(2.2)(a)–(b)).
• Lists defences, including truth and good‑faith discussion in the public interest (s.319(3.2)(a)–(d)).
• Requires Attorney General consent before charges can proceed (s.319(6)).
• Allows forfeiture of items used to commit the offence after conviction (s.319(4)).
• Defines “Indigenous peoples” by reference to the Constitution Act, 1982 (s.319(7)).

What it means for you#

• Households and individuals

  • Public statements that condone, deny, downplay, justify, or misrepresent facts about residential schools, and that wilfully promote hatred against Indigenous peoples, could lead to criminal charges (s.319(2.2)).
  • Private conversations are not covered (the offence applies to statements “other than in private conversation”) (s.319(2.2)).
  • On conviction, a court may order forfeiture of items used to commit the offence (for example, materials or devices used to communicate the statements) (s.319(4)).
  • The maximum penalty is up to 2 years in prison for an indictable offence. A less serious “summary conviction” option is also available (s.319(2.2)(a)–(b)).

• Educators, researchers, journalists, and advocates

  • There are specific defences if you act in good faith, including truth, religious opinion, public‑interest discussion with a reasonable belief the statements were true, or pointing out hateful content to remove it (s.319(3.2)(a)–(d)).
  • The Crown must still prove the statements wilfully promoted hatred against Indigenous peoples and fit the listed ways (condoning, denying, etc.) (s.319(2.2)).

• Indigenous peoples

  • The bill targets public denial or justification of residential schools that promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples, who are defined to include First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (s.319(2.2), s.319(7); Constitution Act, 1982, s.35(2)).

• Online platforms, publishers, and event organizers

  • Content or events that include the prohibited statements could expose speakers to criminal risk if they wilfully promote hatred (s.319(2.2)).
  • Materials used to commit the offence can be subject to forfeiture on conviction (s.319(4)).
  • Prosecutors need the Attorney General’s consent before proceeding (s.319(6)).

• Timing

  • The bill does not set a future start date. New provisions would take effect on Royal Assent (no delayed coming‑into‑force clause).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations or new programs are created in the bill text.
• Possible incremental costs for police, Crown prosecutors, legal aid, courts, and corrections could arise from new investigations and cases. Data unavailable.
• Any revenue effects (fines) are not specified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Addresses residential school denial and justification that promote hatred against Indigenous peoples, closing a gap in hate‑crime law (s.319(2.2)).
• Mirrors the Criminal Code approach used for Holocaust denial, providing a targeted, content‑specific offence within the existing hate‑propaganda framework (s.319(2.1), s.319(2.2)).
• Preserves space for research, journalism, and debate through explicit defences for truth, good‑faith religious opinion, and public‑interest discussion with reasonable belief (s.319(3.2)(a)–(d)).
• Limits overreach by requiring the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute, adding a screening step for cases (s.319(6)).
• Includes a definition of “Indigenous peoples” tied to the Constitution to give clarity on who is protected (s.319(7); Constitution Act, 1982, s.35(2)).

Opponents' View#

• Risk to freedom of expression: terms like “downplaying” and “misrepresenting facts” may be hard to apply consistently and could chill legitimate speech, despite defences (s.319(2.2), s.319(3.2)).
• Enforcement challenges: proving that statements “wilfully promote hatred” and fit the listed categories may be complex and resource‑intensive, with uneven outcomes (s.319(2.2)).
• Overlap with existing law: general hate‑promotion offences already exist; adding a topic‑specific offence could create duplication and confusion (s.319(2), s.319(2.1), s.319(2.2)).
• Potential for selective or politicized enforcement due to the Attorney General consent requirement, which centralizes charging decisions (s.319(6)).
• Forfeiture powers may affect ordinary users’ devices if used to commit the offence, raising proportionality concerns on conviction (s.319(4)).