Bill C-15 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
International Transfer of Offenders Act
An Act to implement treaties and administrative arrangements on the international transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 12, 2004
- Debated in principleFeb. 12, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 27, 2004
- Passed the second chamberMay 12, 2004
- Became lawMay 14, 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
83% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,841 words introduced, 5,945 passed).
transformative changeintent mostly kept
The bill was expanded from a short framework into a detailed statute with new chapters on consent factors, young persons, sentence calculation, and compassionate measures. Core purpose and definitions stayed intact while adding procedural safeguards and provincial roles.
- Added explicit factors and consent rules for provincial authorities deciding on Canadian offenders.
After: “10. Factors — Canadian offenders 11. Writing 12. Consent voluntary”
- Inserted new provisions governing transfer and placement of young persons aged 12 to 17.
After: “17. Transfer of young person — 12 or 13 years old 18. Transfer of young person — 14 to 17 years old 19. Parole eligibility for young person convicted of murder — 14 to 17 years old”
- Created new sections authorizing administrative arrangements for offenders and mentally disordered persons.
Before: “32. Administrative arrangements — mentally disordered persons”
After: “31. Administrative arrangements — offenders 32. Administrative arrangements — mentally disordered persons 33. Definition of "foreign entity"”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act uses many defined terms and exact numerical thresholds for ages, sentence lengths and parole periods, making core rules fairly black-and-white. Ministerial opinion and equivalent-offence identification still inject subjective judgment that can spark argument.
Open to argument
“whether, in the Minister's opinion, the offender will, after the transfer, commit a terrorism offence or criminal organization offence”
Relies on the Minister’s subjective prediction rather than an objective test.
Clear-cut
“their full parole ineligibility period is 10 years”
States a fixed number of years instead of a flexible or harm-based test.
Discretion. The Minister decides equivalence of offences, whether conduct would have been first-degree murder, and whether an offender is likely to commit terrorism or organized-crime offences after transfer.
Challenging the law itself. Broad ministerial discretion on public-safety opinions could be attacked under section 7 Charter liberty interests for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. The Act mainly authorizes or withholds transfers rather than imposing direct duties on offenders, so disputes arise through judicial review of the Minister’s decisions rather than straightforward factual contests.
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
No statutory reviews, Auditor General or PBO reports, departmental evaluations, or peer-reviewed studies assessing the International Transfer of Offenders Act's effectiveness in achieving its purposes were identified in official sources. Annual CSC activity reports document program operations and transfer volumes but provide no outcome evaluations on rehabilitation, reintegration, or public safety impacts.
- Correctional Service Canada Annual Reports on International TransfersevaluationReports detail application volumes, approval rates (e.g., 80% ministerial approvals in sampled years), and program activities but contain no assessments of whether transfers contribute to offender rehabilitation or public safety.
- Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47courtSupreme Court upheld constitutionality of key ITOA provisions limiting ministerial discretion on transfers, confirming the Act's framework is Charter-compliant but not evaluating operational effectiveness.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.