C-254 (45-1) - An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred against Indigenous peoples)
Chamber
commons
Stage
1st Reading
Introduced
Oct 31, 2025
Progress
This bill makes it a criminal offence to publicly condone, deny, downplay, or justify Canada's Indian residential school system.
Key Changes
- Creates a new criminal offence for publicly condoning, denying, downplaying, justifying, or misrepresenting facts about the Indian residential school system
- Applies to statements communicated outside of private conversation (e.g., social media, speeches, publications)
- Sets a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for an indictable offence, or a lesser penalty on summary conviction
- Adds four specific legal defences: truth, good-faith religious opinion, public interest belief, and intent to reduce hatred
- Requires the Attorney General's consent before any prosecution under this new offence can begin
- Defines 'Indigenous peoples' using the existing constitutional definition from subsection 35(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982
Gotchas
- Prosecutions cannot proceed without the Attorney General's consent, which acts as a gatekeeping mechanism and may limit how often the law is used in practice
- The religious opinion defence could be used to shield statements that others might consider denial or minimization, depending on how courts interpret it
- The 'public interest' defence requires only a reasonable belief that statements were true, not that they actually were true, which may create ambiguity in enforcement
- A coordinating amendment ensures the bill aligns with Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act) if that bill also receives royal assent, avoiding conflicting versions of the same Criminal Code sections
- The bill does not define what constitutes 'downplaying' or 'misrepresenting facts,' which may require judicial interpretation and could raise concerns about the scope of the offence
Who's Affected
- Indigenous peoples, particularly survivors and descendants of residential school survivors
- Individuals who publicly make statements about the residential school system
- Journalists, academics, and commentators discussing residential school history
- Social media users and online commentators
- Religious organizations or individuals expressing faith-based views on the topic
Vibes
0 responses
Gotchas
- Prosecutions cannot proceed without the Attorney General's consent, which acts as a gatekeeping mechanism and may limit how often the law is used in practice
- The religious opinion defence could be used to shield statements that others might consider denial or minimization, depending on how courts interpret it
- The 'public interest' defence requires only a reasonable belief that statements were true, not that they actually were true, which may create ambiguity in enforcement
- A coordinating amendment ensures the bill aligns with Bill C-9 (the Combatting Hate Act) if that bill also receives royal assent, avoiding conflicting versions of the same Criminal Code sections
- The bill does not define what constitutes 'downplaying' or 'misrepresenting facts,' which may require judicial interpretation and could raise concerns about the scope of the offence
Summary
Bill C-254 amends the Criminal Code to create a new hate speech offence specifically targeting statements that promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying, justifying, or misrepresenting facts about the Indian residential school system. The offence applies to public statements — anything communicated outside of a private conversation — and carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison if prosecuted as an indictable offence, or a lesser penalty if prosecuted by summary conviction. The bill was introduced by MP Leah Gazan on October 31, 2025, as a private member's bill. It builds on existing hate speech provisions in Section 319 of the Criminal Code by adding a new subsection specifically focused on residential school denial or minimization, similar to how some countries treat Holocaust denial. Several defences are built into the bill, including truthful statements, good-faith religious opinions, statements made in the public interest that the speaker reasonably believed to be true, and statements intended to reduce hatred. Prosecutions under this new offence also require the consent of the Attorney General before they can proceed.
Automatically generated from bill text using Claude
Vibes
0 responses