Bill C-13 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act and the National Defence Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 15, 2004
- Debated in principleMay 12, 2005
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 12, 2005
- Passed the second chamberMay 18, 2005
- Became lawMay 19, 2005
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
78% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (12,086 words introduced, 10,102 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core purpose of expanding DNA sampling for designated offences but restructured the offence lists and definitions substantially. Piecemeal additions in the introduced version were replaced by consolidated categories and a full rewrite of the secondary designated offence definition, adding further offences.
- Secondary designated offence definition was replaced entirely rather than amended in parts.
Before: “Subparagraphs (a)(xxi) and (xxii) of the definition "secondary designated offence" in section 487.04 of the Act are replaced by the following:”
After: “The definitions "secondary designated offence" and "young person" in section 487.04 of the Act are replaced by the following:”
- New escape-related offences were added to secondary designated offences.
After: “(i) section 145 (escape and being at large without excuse), (ii) section 146 (permitting or assisting escape), (iii) section 147 (rescue or permitting escape), (iv) section 148 (assisting prisoner of war to escape),”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses long, specific lists of Criminal Code sections and objective thresholds such as maximum sentences of five years to define primary and secondary designated offences. At the same time it repeatedly leaves key decisions to judicial discretion under open-ended tests such as the best interests of the administration of justice.
Open to argument
“if the court is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so”
This subjective standard gives judges wide latitude without clear statutory criteria.“the impact on the person's or young person's privacy and security of the person would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest”
The grossly disproportionate test is a vague balancing exercise open to differing interpretations.“If, in the opinion of the Attorney General, the defect is due to a clerical error”
Reliance on the Attorney General’s opinion introduces official discretion rather than an objective test.
Clear-cut
“subsection 163.1(2) (making child pornography)”
The amendment adds concrete, numbered offences with exact descriptions.“an offence under this Act that is liable to a maximum sentence of five or more years imprisonment and may be prosecuted by indictment”
This supplies a clear, numerical and procedural test for secondary offences.
Discretion. Courts decide most DNA orders under the best-interests test and the Attorney General reviews defects and substantive classification, leaving substantial room for administrative and judicial judgment.
Challenging the law itself. Section 8 Charter privacy claims could be brought against the breadth of the primary-offence list and the grossly-disproportionate exception, though the detailed statutory scheme makes success uncertain.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions mainly authorize sampling orders rather than create new offences that individuals must interpret, so disputes centre on court applications rather than day-to-day compliance arguments.
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?
partly effective
Bill C-13 expanded designated offences and procedures for the National DNA Data Bank, contributing to growth in profiles and investigative hits as noted in subsequent parliamentary reviews of the DNA Identification Act. Statutory reviews by House and Senate committees identified positive impacts from the 2005 amendments but recommended further expansions, indicating partial achievement of enhanced databank utility.
- Public Protection, Privacy and the Search for Balance: A Statutory Review of the DNA Identification Act (Senate, 2010)reviewThe 2005 amendments via Bills C-13 and C-18 significantly expanded the list of designated offences qualifying for the Convicted Offenders Index, improving collection and management of DNA evidence.
- The Path to Justice - Chapter 8 (Public Prosecution Service of Canada)reviewBills C-13 and C-18 expanded DNA legislation scope, leading to more entries in the Convicted Offenders Index and assisting in solving more crimes.
- Statutory review of the DNA Identification Act (House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, 2009)reviewPost-C-13 expansions increased samples but highlighted needs for automatic sampling and other improvements to maximize effectiveness.
- Summary of the Evaluation of the Biology Casework Analysis Contribution Program (Public Safety Canada, 2026)evaluationIncreased NDDB capacity and hits demonstrate ongoing benefits from expanded DNA collection frameworks including post-2005 amendments.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.