Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred against Indigenous peoples), would amend the Criminal Code; it would not create a separate law. It would add an offence for wilfully promoting hatred against Indigenous peoples through certain statements about the Indian residential school system, made other than in private conversation. The bill’s stated purpose is to create that offence.
The offence would cover statements that condone, deny, downplay or justify the residential school system, or misrepresent facts relating to it.
A person convicted could face an indictable sentence of up to two years in prison, or a summary-conviction offence. The bill does not set out a sentence for the summary-conviction route.
The bill sets out four defences: the statements were true; they were a good-faith religious opinion; they concerned a public-interest subject discussed for the public benefit and the person reasonably believed them to be true; or the person in good faith meant to identify material tending to produce hatred so it could be removed.
A prosecution for this offence could not begin without the Attorney General’s consent. A judge could also order material used in or related to the offence forfeited.
“Indigenous peoples” would have the meaning of “aboriginal peoples of Canada” in the Constitution Act, 1982.
People making public statements: If the bill became law, a person could be charged if the required elements of the offence were met. Private conversations are excluded. The listed defences would apply, and prosecution would require the Attorney General’s consent.
Indigenous peoples: The bill would create a specific criminal offence concerning the promotion of hatred against Indigenous peoples. It does not create a separate service or compensation program.
Courts and prosecutors: The bill would add this offence to the Criminal Code. A judge could order related material forfeited, and existing Criminal Code rules on exemption from seizure of communication facilities would also apply.
Current law: The supplied materials do not include the full Criminal Code, so I could not verify how the proposed offence would compare with current offences or protections.
It would allow a prison sentence of up to two years for an indictable conviction. The bill gives no estimate of prosecution, court, legal-aid or correctional costs.
No estimate is given for costs related to forfeiture or enforcement.
The bill does not define “wilfully promotes hatred,” “downplaying,” “justifying” or “misrepresenting facts.” How those terms would be interpreted is not specified in the supplied text.
The bill does not set out a penalty for the summary-conviction route.
It does not provide rules on how allegations would be investigated or how the Attorney General would decide whether to consent to a prosecution.
The supplied material does not give the bill’s status or a start date. It also does not include the full Criminal Code, so the existing law and possible overlap with other offences could not be checked.
A coordinating amendment depends on Bill C-9 receiving royal assent and specified provisions of both bills coming into force. The supplied text does not say whether those conditions will be met.
The bill appears intended to address statements about residential schools that promote hatred against Indigenous peoples, rather than creating a general offence about discussion of the subject.
The private-conversation exclusion and the four defences could protect some private, religious, truthful or public-interest speech.
Requiring the Attorney General’s consent before a prosecution could provide an additional check on bringing charges.
The terms “downplaying” and “misrepresenting facts,” among others, are not defined in the bill. Their meaning could affect whether people can predict what speech might lead to a charge.
Even with the defences, uncertainty about the offence could make some people cautious about discussing residential schools in public.
The bill does not explain how the public-interest defence would be applied or how the Attorney General’s consent decision would be made.