The so-called "hate speech" section that says it is "discriminatory" to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt" will soon be history on the federal level.  The bill allows for a year-long implementation period.

Conservative MP Brian Storseth's Bill C-304 received royal assent June 26, after passing a third reading vote after a 49-32 vote with three abstentions.  

"It was a great day for Canada," said Storseth in a phone interview from his Westlock-St Paul, Alberta riding.  "This strikes a blow for liberty in Canada."

He praised the work of the late Senator Doug Finley who shepherded the bill through the Senate before his death in early May.

"I can't say enough work about great work Doug did not just on Bill C- 304 but on the cause of freedom of expression," Storseth said.

Now he hopes to work with his provincial colleagues to address similar clauses in provincial human rights legislation "to try to make this the freest country in the world."

At the same time, Storseth wants to work with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson in "beefing up the Criminal Code provisions" on hate speech so that charges are dealt with in "an open and transparent criminal justice system."  The implementation period leaves time for this review to take place, said a spokesperson for the MP.

The Catholic Civil Rights League applauded the fact Bill C-304 has received royal assent.  Section 13 "had caused significant problems for freedom of expression, including expression of religious beliefs, at the federal level," said Catholic Civil Rights League executive director Joanne McGarry in an email. "Because Section 13 has been used to penalize the expression of unpopular opinions based on religious beliefs, including columns and articles written during the debates on same sex marriage, the League was active in calls for its repeal."

McGarry noted Catholic Insight Magazine faced federal complaints under this section.  Even though the complaint was eventually dismissed, the magazine "was forced to incur substantial defence costs" while the complainant "faced little if any expense."

"Because the process is weighted in favour of the complainant, human rights tribunals are not the appropriate forum for testing claims of hate speech," McGarry said. "Criminal Code provisions regarding hate speech, libel and slander laws, with charges tried in court, help ensure that complainant and defendant are on a level playing field with respect to costs, and that rules of evidence and procedure are followed."

McGarry said she hoped the provincial legislation would be reformed "so that free expression of religious beliefs is protected."  

The bill took a year to wind its way through the Senate, getting stuck in a divided Senate human rights committee. Senate human rights committee chair Senator Mobina Jaffer voted against the bill after presenting the committee report in favor of its passage.   Several Senators spoke against the bill and tried to block it a third reading vote.

Jaffer told the Senate hate messages "are an assault on human dignity."

"More than cause offence, they affect the basic social standing of individuals within society," she said. "Section 13 is not about assuaging hurt feelings; it is designed to remedy a situation where members of vulnerable groups have been robbed of their dignity. It is intended to promote the restoration and preservation of justice through reconciliation and education."

"This is not a bill in defense of free speech," said Senate Opposition Leader Senator James Cowan. "This is a bill in defense of hate speech. This is a freedom of hate speech bill."

Storseth said there were times he was concerned about whether his bill would pass all the hurdles in the Senate.  He said he also found the debate in the Senate less civil than the one in the House of Commons last year.

"I was disappointed with the rather low brow comments that were made," he said. "They were really going to extremes in some of their speeches."

Section 13 had long been used to prosecute obscure white supremacists and anti-Semites as well as the occasional Christian who faced complaints from homosexual activists.  It did not come into widespread prominence until Mark Steyn and MacLean's Magazine faced complaints in three human rights jurisdictions---federally, in Ontario and in British Columbia for a series of excerpts based on his bestselling book America Alone that complainants argued were Islamophobic.  

Though the complaints were dismissed in all jurisdictions, the fight included a week-long hearing before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal and cost the MacLean's around $1 million to fight.

Calgary Bishop Fred Henry also faced complaints to the Alberta Human Rights Commission for a pastoral letter in defense of traditional marriage.  Though the complaint was eventually dropped, he also faced legal expenses.