Bill C-14 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 26, 2009
- Debated in principleMarch 26, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 24, 2009
- Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2009
- Became lawJune 23, 2009
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
- John D. WallaceSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Pierre LemieuxHe states he is happy to speak in strong support of the bill.
- Dominic LeBlancHe states clearly that the Liberal Party will support the bill and offered to expedite its passage.
- Rob NicholsonAs minister he introduces the bill and calls for unanimous support to address gang violence.
- Don Daviesexplicitly backs the bill at third reading and highlights its benefits for prosecuting organized crime
- Larry W. CampbellSenate · SenatorThe Liberal Party supports the bill but does not believe it goes far enough to fix the problem.
- Brent RathgeberHe states he is happy the party supports the bill and defends its mandatory minimum sentences based on victim testimony.
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.
What it set out to do
On 26 February 2009, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill amends the Criminal Code by: • making murders connected to organized crime activity automatically first-degree murders, regardless of whether it is planned and deliberate. First-degree murder is subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years; • creating offences for intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless about endangering the life or safety of another person (meant to punish “drive-by” and other reckless shootings). • creating an offence for assaulting a peace officer with a weapon or causing bodily harm and of aggravated assault of a peace officer. This offence would carry a mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison, with a maximum of 14 years. The minimum sentence would increase if the offence was committed for a criminal organization or with a prohibited or restricted firearm such as a handgun; and • to extend the duration of a recognizance to up …
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
74% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,866 words introduced, 2,385 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core changes on first-degree murder for organized crime killings, reckless firearm discharge offences, and new assault offences against peace officers with mandatory minimums. It added explicit language allowing judges to set reasonable conditions, including electronic monitoring, on extended recognizances.
- Added explicit power for judges to impose reasonable conditions on extended recognizances.
After: “(4.1) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill uses defined terms, specific minimum sentences, numbered thresholds and objective conduct descriptions for new firearm and assault offences. Some recognizance provisions rely on judicial satisfaction and desirability standards that introduce subjectivity.
Open to argument
“if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of an offence referred to in subsec”
Relies on the judge's subjective satisfaction rather than an objective checklist.“any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant”
Uses open-ended 'reasonable' and 'desirable' language granting broad discretion.
Clear-cut
“ment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of (i) five years, in the case of a first offence, and (ii) seven years, in the case of a second or subsequent offence”
Sets fixed numerical minimums and clear recidivism rules.“means any building or structure — or part of one — or any motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, railway vehicle, container or trailer”
Provides an exhaustive statutory definition eliminating interpretive disputes.“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”
Uses exact time periods and precise calculation rules.
Discretion. Judges retain discretion to set conditions such as electronic monitoring, treatment programs and geographic restrictions once they find reasonable grounds for fear, with no further regulatory limits supplied in the text.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective fear and desirability tests in section 810.01 could be challenged under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Most new offences rest on concrete physical acts, defined places and mandatory minimums that leave little room for factual dispute once the conduct is proven.
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.