Criminal Ban on Residential School Denialism
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred against Indigenous peoples)
Summary
- Creates a new Criminal Code offence for wilfully promoting hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying, or justifying the Indian residential school system, when communicated publicly (not in private conversation).
- Integrates the new offence within section 319 hate propaganda provisions, mirroring the existing framework and intent standard.
- Includes coordinating amendments with the Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9) to align forfeiture, exemptions for seizure of communication facilities, and Attorney General consent requirements.
- Preserves gatekeeping via Attorney General consent for prosecutions and allows forfeiture of items used to commit the offence.
Builder Assessment
Principles Analysis
—
Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.
Primarily a hate-speech measure with limited direct economic effects; social cohesion benefits are possible but indirect.
✗
Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).
Creates a new speech-related criminal offence that expands legal exposure and enforcement complexity, risking a chilling effect on discourse.
—
Drive national productivity and global competitiveness, including removing interprovincial trade barriers and improving labour mobility (one country, one market).
No direct link to productivity or competitiveness; any effects on academic or media activity are speculative.
—
Grow exports of Canadian products and resources, and move up the value chain by processing resources domestically rather than exporting them raw.
No bearing on trade or export performance.
—
Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.
Does not target investment or innovation policy; reputational effects are uncertain.
—
Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).
Adds a prosecutable offence, potentially increasing justice-system workload; Attorney General consent may limit costs.
—
Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.
No tax policy components.
—
Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.
Narrow, targeted criminal law change addressing a social harm rather than broad prosperity outcomes.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]
PartyMember of Parliament
StatusOutside the Order of Precedence
Last updatedN/A
TopicsCriminal Justice, Indigenous Affairs, Social Issues
Parliament45