Bill C-304 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 30, 2011
- Debated in principleFeb. 15, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 6, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 25, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Doug FinleySenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian Storseth10 interventions in debatemoved the bill for third reading and passage while praising its focus on freedom of speech
- Brent Rathgeber2 interventions in debateHe speaks in favour of the bill as a protection of fundamental free speech rights.
- A. Raynell AndreychukSenate · SenatorSection 13 is outdated and narrow; repeal will force a better modern approach to hate speech.
- Maxime BernierHe explicitly backs the bill to defend individual freedoms and expression.
- David SweetHe fully endorses the bill for safeguarding freedom of speech.
- Jason KenneyHe praises the bill as a necessary step to protect freedom of speech.
- Rick Dykstrabacks repeal of section 13 and recalls prior motion to review it for that purpose
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. · 2012-02-15 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsSenator EggletonAdd gender identity to the prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.Voted down · June 26, 2013 · Senate record
- otherSenator JafferAmend the bill in a manner not specified in the text but opposed to passage as is.Voted down · June 26, 2013 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
63% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (478 words introduced, 408 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent changed direction
The bill passed after deleting only section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, not both sections 13 and 54 as introduced. Section 54 was replaced with a new limitation on orders rather than being repealed.
- The bill's summary was narrowed to delete only section 13.
Before: “This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by deleting sections 13 and 54 to ensure there is no infringement on freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
After: “This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by deleting section 13 to ensure there is no infringement on freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
- Section 54 was replaced with a limitation instead of repealed.
Before: “Section 54 of the Act is repealed.”
After: “No order that is made under subsection 53(2) may contain a term Limitation (a) requiring the removal of an individual from a position if that individual accepted employment in that position in good faith; or (b) requiring the expulsion of an occupant from any premises or accommodation, if that occupant obtained those premises or accom”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill repeals section 13 outright and substitutes narrow, objective replacement language in four other sections with fixed effective dates. All operative text uses concrete conditions such as good-faith acceptance of employment or premises rather than subjective standards.
Clear-cut
“This Act comes into force on the day that is one year after the day on which it receives royal assent.”
Supplies an exact, calendar-based trigger with no ministerial discretion or further conditions.
Discretion. The amendments contain no grants of power to ministers, officials or regulations; the repeal and new limitations operate automatically.
Challenging the law itself. The repeal advances rather than restricts Charter section 2(b) freedom of expression, leaving little basis for a facial challenge.
Disputing a charge under it. Once section 13 is deleted, no person can be accused of the former discriminatory practice of hate messages, eliminating any factual dispute over breach.
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.