Bill C-277 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 12, 2006
- Debated in principleOct. 4, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 28, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 13, 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.
- Donald H. OliverSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Ed Fast9 interventions in debateSponsor moved the bill multiple times and described it as toughening sentences for child luring.
- Joe Comartin3 interventions in debateStated that the NDP caucus would support the bill for addressing proportionality in sentencing.
- Marlene Jennings2 interventions in debateConfirmed Liberal support at committee and in the House after amendments.
- Dave BattersCommended the sponsor and described the bill as an important initiative needing cooperation.
- Carole FreemanSpoke in favour of the bill as protecting children from Internet exploitation.
- Mark WarawaThanked the sponsor for hard work and advocated sending the bill to committee for passage.
- Rob Moorecommends the bill as important for protecting children from online luring
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. · 2006-10-04 · Passed
How it changed on the way
66% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (194 words introduced, 256 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core change of raising the maximum penalty for child luring from five to ten years. It added a new eighteen-month maximum for summary conviction cases and updated the text to cover both paragraphs of the section.
- The bill now replaces both paragraphs instead of only paragraph (a).
Before: “Paragraph 172.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:”
After: “Paragraphs 172.1(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following:”
- A new maximum punishment was added for summary conviction.
After: “or (b) an offence punishable on summary con- viction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.”
How precisely it is written
preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill replaces the penalty paragraphs with fixed maximum terms of ten years for indictable offences and eighteen months for summary convictions. These are objective numerical limits with no subjective standards or undefined terms.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years”
Uses a clear numerical ceiling rather than any discretionary or qualitative test.“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months”
Again fixes an exact maximum term that leaves no room for interpretive debate.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the maxima are set directly in the statute.
Challenging the law itself. The provision merely raises numerical maxima and engages no obvious vagueness or overbreadth issues under the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Whether a sentence exceeds ten years or eighteen months is a simple arithmetic question with little scope for factual dispute.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.