Bill C-18 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 8, 2006
- Debated in principleOct. 4, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 28, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 18, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Pierre Claude NolinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Rob Mooreexplicitly speaks in favour of the bill and sending it to committee
- Vic Toewsmoves second reading and recommends referral to committee as necessary technical changes.
- John William Maloneydescribes the bill as strengthening laws and expects near-unanimous passage.
- Roy Cullencalls the bill largely technical and builds positively on prior legislation.
- Sue Barnesdiscusses bill history positively and looks forward to committee examination
- Lloyd St. Amandexplicitly states agreement and calls the bill a vital tool for safety.
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
How it changed on the way
78% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (21,473 words introduced, 12,412 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill as passed added new factors for courts to weigh when ordering DNA samples for secondary offences and persons found not criminally responsible. Minor wording and timing adjustments were also made to hearing and warrant rules.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact lists of offences, fixed sentence lengths, and mandatory court orders with several subjective standards that turn on opinions or balancing tests. This creates clear rules for many cases but leaves room for argument in others.
Open to argument
“if, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, as the case may be, the offence to which the order or authorization relates is not a designated offence”
Turns destruction duty on a prosecutor's subjective view rather than an objective statutory test.“if it is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so”
Broad discretionary standard for making a secondary-offence order invites case-by-case debate.“without reasonable excuse”
Defence to the failure-to-comply offence rests on an undefined reasonableness judgment.
Clear-cut
“an offence under this Act that may be prosecuted by indictment — or, for section 487.051 to apply, is prosecuted by indictment — for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or more”
Uses fixed maximum sentence length and indictment requirement as clear triggers.“The court shall make an order in Form 5.03”
Mandatory language and prescribed form leave little interpretive room for primary offences.“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years”
Exact penalty ceiling stated for the new offence.
Discretion. The Attorney General's opinion controls sample destruction, and courts retain wide discretion to decide whether an order serves the best interests of justice after weighing listed factors.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as 'best interests of the administration of justice' and 'in the opinion of' could support vagueness or overbreadth claims under Charter sections 7 and 8.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily argue 'reasonable excuse' or dispute whether the Attorney General's opinion was properly formed, though the offence elements themselves are otherwise concrete.
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?
effective
Bill C-18 provided technical amendments to enable implementation of expanded DNA databank provisions from Bill C-13, facilitating broader sampling and operational improvements. Statutory parliamentary reviews and departmental evaluations confirm the resulting National DNA Data Bank system has expanded significantly, producing thousands of investigative hits annually with ongoing positive performance.
- Statutory Review of the DNA Identification Act (House of Commons SECU, 2009)reviewThe review highlighted the DNA databank's strengths in aiding investigations while recommending further expansions and resources, affirming the value of amendments enabling broader use.
- Public Protection, Privacy and the Search for Balance: A Statutory Review of the DNA Identification Act (Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 2010)reviewThe review examined the Act and its amendments, noting the system's contributions to public safety and calling for balance with privacy, while supporting continued operation and enhancements.
- Evaluation of the Biology Casework Analysis Contribution Program (Public Safety Canada, 2026)evaluationThe evaluation found increased DNA profiles uploaded to the NDDB, doubled hits from 2020-2025, and effective contributions to timely criminal justice outcomes from funded laboratories.
- National DNA Data Bank of Canada Annual Report (RCMP, 2024-2025)evaluationThe report documents over 89,000 offender hits and 10,000 forensic hits since inception, with the databank (enabled by expanded provisions) assisting thousands of investigations annually.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.