Bill C-2 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tackling Violent Crime Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 18, 2007
- Debated in principleOct. 26, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 28, 2007
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 26, 2008
- Became lawFeb. 28, 2008
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
- Terry StrattonSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Réal MénardStates that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2.
- Rob MooreCalls for speedy passage and highlights the bill's role in protecting Canadians.
- Ken EppDefends the reverse onus provisions for dangerous offenders as necessary.
- Keith MartinStates directly that Liberals support the bill and have pushed similar measures.
- Rob NicholsonPraises government support and defends bill against Liberal amendments on house arrest.
- Dean Del MastroStrongly endorses the bill's protections for communities and families.
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 Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 42. · 2007-11-26 · Failed
How it changed on the way
69% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (16,762 words introduced, 16,329 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The introduced bill underwent extensive revisions, with 69% of its text removed or replaced before royal assent. Core provisions on new firearm offences and escalating mandatory minimum sentences were retained with only minor structural adjustments.
- Preamble and short title formatting updated for final statute publication.
Before: “FIRST READING, OCTOBER 18, 2007 THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE”
After: “ASSENTED TO 28th FEBRUARY, 2008”
- Section numbering and cross-references standardized in final version.
Before: “Subsequent offences 10 15 (a) an offence under section 85, 95, 96, 98, 98.1, 99, 100, 102 or 103 or subsection 117.01(1);”
After: “Subsequent offences (a) an offence under section 85, 95, 96, 98, 98.1, 99, 100, 102 or 103 or subsection 117.01(1);”
- Minor wording alignment in punishment clauses for consistency.
Before: “Punishment — firearm 10 15 (a) in the case of a first offence, three years;”
After: “Punishment — firearm (a) in the case of a first offence, three years;”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies on numbered thresholds, fixed time periods, and explicit conviction-sequence rules to set mandatory minimums and subsequent-offence triggers. A few phrases still require external definitions or regulatory qualification.
Open to argument
“for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”
The phrase uses relational standards without further definition in the supplied text.“qualified under the regulations to conduct evaluations”
Qualification standard is left to future regulations rather than stated in the statute.
Clear-cut
“However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.”
Exact calendar rule and exclusion of custody time remove interpretive discretion.“the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences”
Explicitly limits the test to one objective fact.“the accused (i) is less than five years older than the complainant;”
Uses a precise age-difference number rather than a subjective standard.
Discretion. The text delegates qualification of evaluating officers to regulations and leaves the meaning of association with a criminal organization to case-by-case application.
Challenging the law itself. Mandatory minimums and the 10-year look-back could be attacked for overbreadth under s. 12 or vagueness under s. 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. Clear numerical thresholds, conviction-sequence rules, and defined places make factual disputes narrow once the elements are identified.
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.