Bill C-250 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberApril 27, 2004
- Became lawApril 29, 2004
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
92% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (146 words introduced, 212 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core purpose of adding sexual orientation to the hate propaganda definition of identifiable group. During passage, Parliament added a new clause amending the religious opinion defence in section 319(3)(b).
- Added a replacement for the good-faith religious opinion defence.
After: “(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill replaces the definition with an exhaustive list of five specific distinguishing characteristics, leaving little room for expansion by interpretation. The amended defence uses a few open-ended phrases that could require case-by-case judgment.
Open to argument
“in good faith”
This requires subjective assessment of the speaker's motive rather than an objective test.“an opinion on a religious subject”
The phrase does not define the boundaries of what qualifies as religious.
Clear-cut
“"identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”
It supplies a closed list of categories with no residual discretion or undefined terms.
Discretion. The Criminal Code provisions contain no grants of power to ministers, officials or regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The expanded definition could readily be challenged under Charter section 2(b) for overbreadth in restricting expression.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether statements were made in good faith or constituted an opinion based on a religious text, turning on factual findings.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.