Bill C-16 · 37th Parliament · Paul Martin
Sex Offender Information Registration Act
An Act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to 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 chamberMarch 31, 2004
- Became lawApril 1, 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
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act relies on many defined terms, fixed timelines such as 15 days, and objective thresholds such as reasonable grounds to suspect, which narrows most obligations. Some discretion remains in regulation-making powers, Commissioner satisfaction, and phrases such as appropriate adult or could reasonably be expected.
Open to argument
“an appropriate adult chosen by them”
The term appropriate introduces a subjective standard that can be disputed in individual cases.“could reasonably be expected to identify any individual”
Reasonably expected leaves room for argument over future identification risk.
Clear-cut
“within 15 days after”
A fixed calendar period removes debate over timing.“a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both”
Maximum penalties are stated in exact numbers.
Discretion. Lieutenant governors in council and the Governor in Council may make regulations on reporting methods and other matters, and the Commissioner may authorize research access after being satisfied of necessity.
Challenging the law itself. Defined terms and objective thresholds reduce vagueness claims, but privacy and liberty interests under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter could still support an overbreadth argument.
Disputing a charge under it. Specific reporting windows, listed data elements, and fingerprint destruction rules leave little room to dispute whether a breach occurred once facts are established.
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
A 2009 parliamentary statutory review identified operational weaknesses and low usage compared to provincial registries, recommending amendments for greater effectiveness. The Supreme Court of Canada in 2022 noted little concrete evidence that the registry assists police in preventing or investigating sex offences.
- Statutory Review of the Sex Offender Information Registry Act (Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, December 2009)reviewRecommended statutory amendments to SOIRA and related legislation to ensure the national registry is best able to fulfill its purpose of helping police investigate sex offences.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.