Bill C-9 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 4, 2006
- Debated in principleJune 6, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 3, 2006
- Passed the second chamberMay 15, 2007
- Became lawMay 31, 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
- David TkachukSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Rob MooreBacks the bill's core goal to eliminate house arrest for serious or violent crimes as promised to voters.
- Jay HillMakes restricting misuse of conditional sentencing a priority and supports the bill's approach.
- Vic ToewsPresents the bill as fulfilling the government's platform to restrict conditional sentences for violent and repeat offenders.
- Daniel PetitDefends the bill explicitly as non-repressive and explains its use of indictments for serious cases.
- Rick DykstraStates the bill delivers on the platform to eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes.
- Derek LeeDefends the need for sentences that reflect crime seriousness and include denunciation via incarceration.
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. · 2006-06-06 · Passed
How it changed on the way
96% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (468 words introduced, 415 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill as introduced barred conditional sentences for every indictable offence carrying a maximum of ten years or more. The law as passed narrowed that bar to only serious personal injury, terrorism and criminal organization offences, and added a six-month delay before it takes effect.
- Replaced the broad exclusion for all serious indictable offences with three specific categories.
Before: “other than an offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more”
After: “other than a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more”
- Added a delayed coming-into-force date.
After: “This Act comes into force six months after the day on which it receives royal assent.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses exact cross-references, fixed numbers such as ten years and two years, and defined offence categories to bar conditional sentences in clear cases. It still leaves the court a broad subjective judgment on community safety and sentencing principles before any conditional sentence can be granted.
Open to argument
“is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community”
This is a subjective judicial assessment rather than an objective test.
Clear-cut
“serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752”
It ties the exclusion directly to an existing statutory definition.“prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more”
It uses a clear procedural route and a fixed numerical threshold.“an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment”
It employs an objective statutory feature that can be checked from the offence provision itself.
Discretion. No power is given to ministers or regulations; all remaining discretion rests with sentencing judges applying the two subjective tests quoted above.
Challenging the law itself. The subjective safety and consistency tests could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth, though the specific offence exclusions are narrowly drawn.
Disputing a charge under it. Once the offence category, sentence length and minimum-term status are established from the record, the only remaining disputes concern the court's discretionary satisfaction on the two listed factors.
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
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.