C-9 English vs French
Differences in Interpretation Between the English and French Versions of Bill C-9
Current Text as of 15 December 2025
Canada’s federal legislative framework is founded on the principle that both the English and French versions of a statute carry equal legal authority. In theory, the two versions are intended to express a single legislative intent. In practice, however, differences in wording can give rise to meaningful interpretive divergence, particularly in criminal law, where precision and foreseeability are essential. Bill C-9 provides a clear illustration of this phenomenon.
One of the most significant points of divergence concerns the statutory definition of hatred. In the English version, the term “vilification” generally denotes an active and severe form of moral degradation, involving the portrayal of a group as inherently contemptible or unworthy of respect. The French version employs the term “dénigrement,” which carries a broader semantic range and may encompass expressions that are less extreme in nature. As a result, the threshold for criminal liability may be lower in French than in English, potentially leading to asymmetrical application depending on the linguistic framework adopted by a court.
A similar divergence appears in the translation of “legitimate purpose” into “but légitime.” In English, “legitimate purpose” is a well-established concept in common law, grounded in notions of legality, reasonableness, and objective justification. In French, “but légitime” may be perceived as carrying a more normative or moral connotation, inviting a broader evaluation of the acceptability of the accused’s intentions. This nuance risks narrowing the scope of available defences in francophone contexts.
By contrast, the distinction between “display” in English and “exposition” in French may operate in the opposite direction. The English verb “to display” encompasses a wide range of situations, including passive wearing or incidental presentation of a symbol. The French term “exposition” more strongly suggests a deliberate and conscious act of presentation. In certain circumstances, this difference could result in a narrower interpretation under the French version, potentially favoring the accused.
However, this narrowing effect is offset by the broader reach of the French formulation “susceptible d’être confondu,” which translates the English phrase “so nearly resembles as to be confused.” While the English wording implies a real likelihood of confusion, the French formulation admits mere possibility. This distinction expands the potential scope of criminal liability under the French text and increases uncertainty in borderline symbolic cases.
Comparable differences arise in the provisions governing confiscation of property. The English phrase “in relation to” is generally interpreted as requiring a functional or legal connection to the offence. The French expression “en liaison avec” may be read more expansively, encompassing indirect, material, or even conceptual links. This divergence further amplifies the breadth of confiscation powers under the French version.
Taken as a whole, the English version of Bill C-9 is more technical in tone and more closely aligned with traditional common law criminal drafting, whereas the French version adopts broader formulations that are at times more morally inflected and open to expansive interpretation. In a bilingual legal system where both versions are equally authoritative, these divergences constitute a genuine legal problem. They introduce interpretive instability, undermine legal predictability, and raise concerns about equality before the law.
End of document – English interpretive comparison
