RUBENSTEIN: Will Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, ever be enacted?

Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, first introduced in the House of Commons on September 19, 2025, was paused at the Consideration in Committee stage in the House on January 26, 2026, when the Justice Committee voted to suspend the bill’s clause-by-clause study.The bill aims to create a standalone hate crime offence, criminalizing intimidation, regulating hate symbols, and removing Attorney General consent for hate propaganda charges, all contentious issues.No specific date has been set for the resumption of debates, though some reports suggest the pause could last several weeks or longer as the government addresses significant opposition.A controversial amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois and supported by the Liberals would remove the "good faith" religious defence (Section 319(3)(b)), which protects expressions based on religious texts.Critics like the Canadian Constitutional Foundation argue the bill's broad definitions could "chill" public debate and criminalize offensive but non-hateful speech.The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has warned that the new intimidation offences could unintentionally criminalize peaceful protests near cultural or religious sites. A new wrinkle has just been added to the debate. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Canada’s eyes and ears in Ottawa, Bill C-9 would protect indigenous sacred sites, including unmarked graveyards, from obstruction and intimidation. The bill’s application to sacred sites, regardless of cemetery designation, would be determined by police, prosecutors, and courts. .The government is also exploring measures to address Indian Residential School denialism, which includes questioning indigenous versions of history and truth-telling in the bill.This is because among indigenous cultures generally — encompassing diverse groups such as federally recognized Indian Bands in Canada or the Aboriginals of Australia — the concept of the "sacred" is not a separate religious category, as is sacredness in other religions like Christianity, but part of an integrated way of thinking and living where every element of the natural world is imbued with spirituality. Sacredness is especially connected to so-called traditional lands, which are often described as the "mother" or "heart" of the people; it is not merely occupied and utilized but rather "owns" the people through reciprocal responsibility. Features such as mountains, rivers, rock outcrops, and even specific trees are sacred because they mark the presumed actions of a multitude of ancestral creation beings.Sites traditionally used for birthing, initiation, or burial often also carry deep spiritual significance.Likewise, spiritual beliefs govern how people interact with the universe through specific rituals, a feature loosely shared with many other religions.In many North American indigenous cultures, tobacco, sage, cedar, and sweetgrass are used for cleansing, protection, and sending prayers to the Creator, a supernatural being distinct from the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.Practices such as the smudging ceremony, sweat lodge, sun dance, and potlatch are seen as vital for maintaining spiritual balance and community health.The spirits of those who have passed are believed to watch over the living, often appearing as spirit protectors or totems..A core belief is that all things — rocks, plants, animals, and humans — are related and share the same life force. In short, indigenous sacredness, especially its contemporary and highly politicized versions, is an all-encompassing, elastic notion that applies to anything and everything that Aboriginal authorities like elders and knowledge keepers ‘claim’ is sacred, including sacred fires, sacred stories, and sacred places.But there are a couple of additional wrinkles to the one already mentioned.As of the 2021 census, 47% of indigenous people in Canada identified as Christian, a decline from 63% in 2011, but still testimony to 500 years of voluntary cultural assimilation to European lifeways. This shift reflects a growing movement away from traditional Christian affiliation, with many Aboriginals exploring their cultural and spiritual roots instead.Still, less than five percent of indigenous people, most living on Indian Reserves, settlements where fewer Aboriginals choose to reside as the decades pass, professed to believe and practice Aboriginal spirituality.In short, the bulk of Bill C-9’s proposed indigenous provisions apply to a minuscule segment of Aboriginals.This demographic trend gives substance to Blacklock’s Reporter’s finding that Bill C-9 would outlaw “obstruction” of indigenous sacred sites, including purported unmarked graveyards, according to a Department of Justice memo. Attorney General Sean Fraser made no mention of this when he first introduced Bill C-9.“It is the intention of the government that Indigenous peoples and their religious and cultural spaces received equal protections under Bill C-9,” said the memo titled Supplemental Questions and Answers. The bill includes a new offence of “obstruction” for the purpose of intimidation at any place of worship..The justice department in an earlier Backgrounder explained: “The proposed intimidation and obstruction offences would protect buildings or structures that are primarily used for religious worship, e.g. synagogues, mosques, churches, temples and gurdwaras, or cemeteries, or primarily used by an ‘identifiable group’ for administrative, social, cultural or sports activity purposes such as an educational institution or seniors’ residence.”The internal report also said Bill C-9 would apply to any area designated as sacred by indigenous groups, whether it was a cemetery or not. The Tk’emlups te Secwepemc First Nation (legally the Kamloops Indian Band) of Kamloops, BC, on February 17 issued a news release describing as a “sacred site” an orchard at a Residential School, where, in 2021, it claimed to find 215 children’s graves using ground-penetrating radar.It was “a place of memory and healing,” wrote the Band. No graves have ever been discovered, let alone exhumed, though the indigenous Band council received $12.1 million in federal funding for on-site investigation.“Whether a particular sacred space or burial site meets the definition of a ‘cemetery’ or a ‘building or structure’ used primarily for a certain purpose will be a determination by investigating officers and ultimately for adjudication by the courts,” said the government memo.Not so, the Kamloops Band would surely claim, given that it was granted full control over its alleged discovery from at least May 27, 2021, the day it was announced.The Band also failed to mention that as many as 14 clans want this sacred site to be excavated, yet another wrinkle..“Are Indigenous sacred sites, including burial sites, protected by the proposed intimidation and obstruction offences?” asked the justice department memo. “The proposed intimidation and obstruction offences would apply.”Whether the 14 dissenting clans would be charged with “intimidation and obstruction offences” if they pushed hard on their excavation claims is unclear.“Why isn’t Indian Residential School (IRS) denialism proposed in this bill?” the memo continued. “The government recognizes there is strong interest in potential criminal law measures to address Indian Residential School denialism.”“The government remains committed to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada and exploring all options to combat Residential School denialism,” said the memo. “The government continues to work with provinces and territories to examine additional ways to address hate crimes in Canada, including those targeting Indigenous people. This includes education and public information, which are essential to raising awareness about the truth regarding missing children and unmarked burials.”This last wrinkle may obliquely suggest that IRS denialism, whatever that elusive concept means, will not be included in the final version of the bill, thereby allowing people like me who have challenged the unsubstantiated claims by the Kamloops Band, and dozens like it, employing logic and scientific evidence to continue to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights.Hymie Rubenstein, editor of REAL Indigenous Report, is a retired professor of anthropology at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

RUBENSTEIN: Will Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, ever be enacted?

Related Stories