How have provincial governments and Indigenous groups responded to the provisions in Bill C-9?
Executive summary
Provincial governments and Indigenous groups have reacted strongly and variably to provisions in federal bills broadly labelled “C‑9” or similar: several provinces and territories have pushed back where they see federal overreach or threat to provincial jurisdiction, while Indigenous leaders and organizations have criticised fast‑track and consultation processes and pursued court challenges or public denunciations (examples: nine Ontario First Nations seeking an injunction against federal Bill C‑5 and Ontario Bill 5; chiefs denouncing delays and watering down of a First Nations water bill) [1] [2]. Civil society and legal observers also register mixed views about another Bill C‑9 (Combatting Hate Act): some advocacy groups urge stronger protection from hate, while civil liberties groups warn it risks criminalizing protest and speech—provincial attorneys general, prosecutors and premiers are being asked to set policies as the bill moves through committee [3] [4] [5].
1. Provinces push back where they see jurisdictional or rights risks
Provincial governments have not been passive: Ontario and others have championed fast‑track infrastructure measures that Ottawa has supported, and those laws provoked both provincial‑level assertion of policy aims (for example Ontario’s Bill 5) and litigation from Indigenous nations who say provincial and federal fast‑track powers threaten their rights (nine Ontario First Nations asked a court for an injunction, arguing the federal Bill C‑5 and Ontario Bill 5 represent a “clear and present danger” to their self‑determination) [1]. Legal and policy commentators note provinces are actively amending provincial child and family services laws to align—or to resist—federal measures such as Bill C‑92, showing provinces are legislative actors shaping outcomes [6].
2. Indigenous leaders denounce weak consultation and dilution of promises
Indigenous chiefs and organizations publicly condemned Ottawa when a promised First Nations clean water bill was delayed and reportedly set to be weakened before tabling; chiefs in Ontario called the delay “unacceptable” and highlighted persistent boil‑water advisories affecting dozens of communities [2]. Broadly, Indigenous groups have insisted that co‑development, meaningful consultation and free, prior and informed consent are missing from rapid legislative drives—assertions reflected in chiefs’ statements and in third‑party summaries alleging laws were developed without meaningful consultation [2] [7].
3. Courts and legal actions are central to Indigenous responses
When governments move quickly, Indigenous communities turn to courts. The injunction by nine First Nations in Ontario is explicit: they sought judicial relief to prevent operation of national‑interest designations and special economic zones they say could sidestep constitutional protections and consultation duties [1]. Legal firms and analysts continue to flag that federal affirmations of Indigenous jurisdiction (as with Bill C‑92) still leave constitutional questions to the courts—meaning litigation will remain the mechanism for resolving competing claims among federal, provincial and Indigenous laws [8].
4. Provincial actors and civil society push for implementation clarity and prosecutorial policy
On other federal measures labelled C‑9 (Combatting Hate Act), provincial attorneys general and prosecutors are identified as necessary partners for effective enforcement; witnesses at committee urged provincial prosecution policies and Crown training to ensure hate crimes are prioritized—and provinces will have to decide how to operationalize new offences if passed [5] [3]. At the same time, civil liberties groups such as the CCLA warn the bill risks criminalizing peaceful protest and protected speech, a concern that provincial actors monitoring public order and rights are taking seriously [4].
5. Divided civil society and mixed political tradeoffs shape responses
Responses are not monolithic: victim‑advocacy voices commend the Combatting Hate Act as an important step to protect targeted communities (Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime praised the bill’s objectives), while civil‑liberties and academic critics argue the same text expands state power over expression and protest [3] [5]. Political manoeuvres are visible—reports that the Bloc Québécois would seek removal of a religious exemption and that the Liberals might support such an amendment show provincial‑level and regional political calculations influencing federal text and thus shaping how provinces and Indigenous groups read the law [9].
6. What’s missing from current reporting and why it matters
Available sources do not mention comprehensive, nationwide provincial strategies coordinated specifically in response to the various C‑9 provisions; nor do they provide a complete catalogue of all provincial legislative amendments reacting to every federal measure referenced here—reporting is episodic and focused on high‑profile disputes and committee hearings (not found in current reporting) [10] [11]. That gap matters because the balance between federal initiative and provincial/Indigenous pushback will largely be decided in litigation, clause‑by‑clause committee amendments, and in implementation policies by provinces and prosecutors—processes still unfolding in the sources at hand [5] [1].
Closing note: sources show a pattern—rapid federal initiatives provoke immediate provincial and Indigenous scrutiny, leading to litigation, committee-level amendments and public campaigns. The outcome will depend less on headlines than on court rulings, provincial enforcement decisions and whether Ottawa sustains meaningful co‑development with Indigenous Nations, a point repeatedly raised by chiefs and legal analysts [2] [1] [8].