Bill C-14 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 12, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 12, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 12, 2004
- Passed the second chamberApril 20, 2004
- Became lawApril 22, 2004
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
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
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes specific penalties and some defined terms with repeated subjective standards such as 'likely to', 'reasonably necessary', 'reasonable grounds' and 'harm'. These leave core prohibitions and powers open to argument rather than settling them by clear rules.
Open to argument
“a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person”
Uses the open-ended prediction 'likely to' without an objective threshold or list of devices.“using as much force as is reasonably necessary”
Subjective reasonableness test that depends on the actor's belief at the time.“it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of the person, or of any other person”
Broad discretionary judgment by a justice with no defined criteria.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years”
Fixed maximum sentence stated in clear numbers.“from the time when all external doors are closed following embarkation until the later of”
Exact temporal definition of 'in flight'.
Discretion. Ministers, peace officers and justices retain wide latitude to decide what measures are 'reasonable' or 'essential' and when safety interests justify seizure or interception.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'likely to' and 'reasonably necessary' readily support a s. 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can argue that their belief or the risk was not 'reasonable' or that the interception was not 'essential', but the tests are fact-specific and hard to disprove outright.
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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.