SIGN THE PETITION: Canada’s Public Nudity Law Needs a Modern Line in the Sand
We Need Your Support to End the Shadow of Criminal Ambiguity
Every year, thousands of Canadians step into nature without clothing. We do it to shed stress, reconnect with the natural world, build authentic body confidence, and feel a simple sense of freedom. For many of us, social naturism isn’t just a weekend activity. It’s a core part of our mental health and well-being.
Yet under current federal law, every time we step nude onto a quiet lake shore or a wilderness trail, we carry an invisible burden.
Section 174 of the Criminal Code makes it a summary conviction offence to be nude in public, or in public view on private property, without a “lawful excuse.” The statute leans on vague terms like “public decency” and never defines “lawful excuse,” which leaves ordinary people who are simply enjoying nature exposed to unpredictable judgment calls. This isn’t an abstract legal detail. It affects real people, real livelihoods, and real peace of mind.
Now a quiet, deliberate movement is gaining traction across Canada. From long-established shores like Wreck Beach and VanTan on the West Coast, through park communities in the Prairies, to inland swims in Ontario and Quebec, supporters are getting behind a new parliamentary petition. The goal is straightforward: amend Section 174 to make clear, once and for all, that simple outdoor nudity is not, by itself, a federal crime.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PARLIAMENTARY E-PETITION
What we are up against
Section 174(1) makes it a summary conviction offence to be nude in a public place, or nude and exposed to public view on private property, “without lawful excuse.” That second part can reach your own backyard if neighbours or passersby can see you. Subsection (2) deems a person nude if they are “so clad as to offend against public decency or order.” Unlike Section 173, which targets indecent acts and sexual exposure, Section 174 requires no sexual intent or malice.
The stakes are not trivial. Since September 2019, the Criminal Code’s general penalty for a summary conviction offence has been a fine of up to $5,000, up to two years less a day in jail, or both, and police have up to 12 months to lay a charge. Those are maximums, not typical sentences, but they stand behind every complaint.
The “lawful excuse” ambiguity. The Criminal Code never defines what counts as a “lawful excuse.” Court decisions under Section 174 have accepted excuses such as a legitimate theatrical performance or modelling for art students, and, as Calgary Nude Recreation reads them, they point toward the view that nudity without a sexual element is not inherently indecent. But those are fact-specific rulings, not a clear rule. Established beaches like Wreck Beach and Hanlan’s Point rely on local authorization or de facto tolerance rather than a federal exemption. Outside those few recognized pockets, everyday citizens live in constant legal limbo. For teachers, healthcare workers, public servants, small business owners, and young professionals, the threat of criminal ambiguity is a constant shadow.
Front-line judgment calls. Because federal law lacks explicit boundaries, interpretation falls on park rangers, municipal recreation staff, and local police. When someone complains about a person swimming or sunbathing unclothed on a quiet lake or trail, front-line staff have to guess whether a “lawful excuse” exists.
An Attorney General no one can predict. Section 174(3) says no proceedings can begin without the Attorney General’s consent. That is a real safeguard against frivolous charges. But in 2019, Calgary Nude Recreation reported that Alberta’s Attorney General would not say in advance whether consent would be granted, because it depends on the specific case. A safeguard nobody can predict leaves the real discretion with whoever complains and whoever responds, and it pushes local bodies toward administrative threats and trespass notices instead of clear rules.
When a law relies on subjective discretion, a misunderstanding or a single complaint can bring police to the door. Even when charges are never laid or are later dropped, the threat of a police interaction, a court summons, or a records check can create fear. People can face job loss, professional discipline, and public shaming when harmless naturist recreation is mistaken for criminal behaviour. That pushes many to keep their personal practice hidden, as if it were something dirty or illicit.
We should not have to risk our professional reputations or livelihoods just to enjoy harmless nude recreation outdoors.
A bit of history
The Federation of Canadian Naturists (FCN) has long maintained that “mere nudity” without sexual intent should not fall under criminal law. For decades, the FCN has engaged in federal justice policy consultations, maintained legal defense resources, and supported arguments in court cases to protect individuals and clubs against improper charges under Section 174.
In 2019, Calgary Nude Recreation (CNR) retained a constitutional law firm to review whether naturism is lawful. In its own summary, CNR said the law turned out to be mostly on its side, at least for activity in secluded parts of national and provincial parks, while stressing that its write-up is not legal advice. Because the statute offers no explicit protection, CNR adopted a policy it calls “Don’t Ask, Do Tell”: notifying police and park authorities ahead of outdoor events to build trust and head off misunderstandings.
That kind of proactive communication works well for organized groups. But it depends on informal relationships and goodwill, which is the underlying problem. Canadians shouldn’t have to navigate unwritten rules to enjoy harmless recreation.
In 2022, a petition to the House of Commons, e-3999, asked Parliament to repeal Section 174 entirely. Elizabeth May, MP, sponsored it, but said publicly that sponsoring a petition is not the same as endorsing it. It closed in September 2022 with roughly 1,750 signatures. Afterward, the FCN noted that many petitions presented to Parliament do not lead to government action, and it launched a letter-writing campaign asking Ottawa for a formal review of Section 174.
Some in the naturist community were hesitant about a total repeal because wiping out the section risked creating a regulatory vacuum, threatening municipal oversight, and inviting severe public or legislative pushback.
Why the Current Petition Takes a Smarter Approach
The current petition learns from past efforts by choosing clarification over repeal. Rather than wiping Section 174 off the books, it asks Parliament to add explicit language confirming that the mere state of being without clothing does not, in itself, constitute indecent, threatening, or harassing conduct, and that no offence is committed under this section where the nudity is non-sexual in nature and is not accompanied by conduct that is independently indecent, threatening, or harassing toward another person.
This petition isn’t about creating an unrestricted free-for-all. It doesn’t create a right to be nude anywhere at any time, and it doesn’t override municipal bylaws. It’s about securing basic dignity, fairness, and safety under Canadian law. By adding explicit language to Section 174, Parliament can state clearly that being unclothed outdoors, without sexual conduct, is not a criminal act. Here is what that would do:
- It protects ordinary citizens. It stops the criminalization of harmless recreation and separates it from non-consensual misconduct, so police can focus on genuine threats to public safety.
- It gives municipalities clear, sensible tools. Cities and local park boards can still use bylaws to manage where clothing is optional. It replaces the blunt instrument of a federal criminal record with straightforward civic management.
- It protects workers from unfair ruin. A clear federal rule makes it much harder for employers, licensing boards, and front-line authorities to mischaracterize ordinary naturism as a crime.
The petition also asks the House to direct the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study how the change would be implemented, including clear federal guidance for police and recreation authorities, so enforcement is consistent across the country.
Who is behind it. The petition was drafted by Scott Bleackley of the Sunshine Coast, BC, a member of the Federation of Canadian Naturists. Elizabeth May, MP, has agreed to sponsor it, as she did e-3999 in 2022. Under House of Commons practice, an MP’s sponsorship is not by itself an endorsement of a petition’s wording.
A Stand for the Next Generation
The petition’s own preamble says a significant and growing proportion of Canadians, particularly those aged 16 to 24, report practising situational nudity as a natural part of outdoor recreational life. For many, it’s a way to ease body anxiety and support mental health. They deserve to grow up in a country where healthy body autonomy is recognized, not threatened with legal action. You don’t have to be a naturist to care about that.
Many of us already do everything right. When we hike along the shores of Lake Winnipeg, we choose quiet, isolated stretches, pick spots where nobody else is around, and keep to ourselves. We aren’t looking to make a statement or force our presence on anyone, nor are we asking for the right to drop our clothes on a busy family beach, a downtown park, or a crowded municipal trail.
Even when you take every reasonable precaution to be respectful and discreet, the current law provides no safe harbour if someone happens to wander by and complain. On a body of water the size of Lake Winnipeg, there is more than enough room for everyone… clothed and unclothed alike… to enjoy the water peacefully without crossing paths.
Clear federal law won’t automatically create new nudist beaches overnight, but by removing the shadow of federal criminal charges, it takes the panic out of the conversation. It creates a safe legal baseline so local governments, park authorities, and communities can actually sit down and have mature discussions about designating sensible, well-managed spaces without worrying that they are somehow enabling a federal crime.
We have relied on unwritten rules, legal workarounds, and police discretion for long enough. It is time for federal law to reflect the reality of modern Canadian society.
Add your voice to the e-petition
I (Kevin) added my name as one of the first five signatures. Under House of Commons rules, an e-petition needs five supporters before the sponsoring MP can authorize it for publication, and once the Clerk of Petitions confirms it meets the rules, it opens for public signatures on the House of Commons petitions site. Now I’m calling on all of you to add yours.
Here is how it works from there. The petition stays open for signatures for a set period, up to 120 days. If it gathers at least 500 valid signatures, it is certified and presented in the House of Commons by its sponsor, and the government must table a written response within 45 days. A response doesn’t commit the government to act, but it puts the question on the record, and every signature shows MPs how many Canadians care.
You don’t have to be a nudist or naturist to sign. If you believe someone should be able to swim nude in a quiet lake, or garden nude in their own backyard, without risking a criminal record, this petition is for you. And if you are a naturist or nudist, ask your non-naturist friends, family, and coworkers to sign too. A signature from someone who has never been nude outdoors says something ours can’t… that this is about fairness and clear law, not a choice of life or recreation.
Real change requires action from the community. When this e-petition goes live on the official House of Commons portal, your signature sends a direct message to Parliament that everyday Canadians deserve clarity and protection.
Requirements: You must be a Canadian citizen or resident. Please remember to check your email after submitting to confirm your signature.
It’s time for Canadians to step up and make a change.
[CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PARLIAMENTARY E-PETITION]
Kevin
Leave a Reply