Bill C-21 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 3, 2010
- Debated in principleOct. 5, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 15, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 8, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
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
- Claude CarignanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jim MalowaySpeaker states that all parties support the bill and it will achieve success.
- Daniel PetitPraises the bill for toughening penalties and improving victim measures in fraud cases.
- Ed Fastdefends the bill's substance including its denunciation and deterrence measures.
- Alan TonksSpeaker provides overview of the bill and explains how mandatory minimums would apply without objection.
- Sukh DhaliwalSpeaker calls the legislation very important and urgent due to victims of white collar crime.
- André BellavanceDescribes the bill's minimum sentences and aggravating factors as needed to restore the justice system's reputation.
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 3 May 2010, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud) (Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-21 amends the Criminal Code • to create a two-year mandatory jail sentence for fraud over $1 million; • to create a discretionary prohibition order for offenders convicted of fraud to prevent them from having authority over the money or real property of others; • to require judges to consider ordering an offender convicted of fraud to make restitution; • to clarify that the sentencing court may consider community impact statements from a community that has been harmed by the fraud ; and • to specify additional aggravating factors be considered on sentencing, including - the financial and psychological impact of the fraud on the victim, given the victim’s particular circumstances, including their age, health and financial situation; - if the offender failed to comply with applicable licensing rules or professional standards; and -the magnitude, complexity, and duration of the fraud and the degree of planning that went into it.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,841 words introduced, 1,681 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
Core measures on the two-year mandatory minimum, prohibition orders, restitution inquiries, community impact statements and most aggravating factors survived intact. Refinements added one new aggravating factor on record concealment and narrowed the duty to give reasons for refusing restitution.
- Added concealment or destruction of records as an aggravating factor.
After: “(f) the offender concealed or destroyed records related to the fraud or to the disbursement of the proceeds of the fraud.”
- Limited the requirement to give reasons for denying restitution to cases where a victim actually seeks it.
Before: “If the court decides not to make a restitution order, it shall give reasons for its decision and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.”
After: “If a victim seeks restitution and the court decides not to make a restitution order, it shall give reasons for its decision and shall cause those reasons to be stated in the record.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes clear numerical thresholds and mandatory minimums with many subjective judicial tests and discretionary powers. This creates pockets of black-and-white rules amid broad room for argument over application.
Open to argument
“The prohibition may be for any period that the court considers appropriate”
Uses open-ended subjective standard instead of fixed duration or objective criteria.“if, in the opinion of the court, the variation is desirable because of changed circumstances”
Leaves variation entirely to judicial opinion without defined triggers.“the amount of which must be readily ascertainable”
Undefined term invites disputes over what counts as readily ascertainable.“the offence had a significant impact on the victims given their personal circum”
Relies on vague 'significant' and individualized assessment without objective benchmarks.
Clear-cut
“minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars”
Uses fixed term and clear dollar threshold creating an objective trigger.“the value of the fraud committed exceeded one million dollars”
Provides a numerical bright line for an aggravating factor.“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”
States a maximum sentence with no open-ended language.
Discretion. Courts receive wide latitude on prohibition orders, restitution inquiries, sentence variations and community statements, while the Governor in Council alone decides when the Act comes into force.
Challenging the law itself. Mandatory minimum and vague phrases such as 'significant impact' and 'appropriate' could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or s. 12 for gross disproportionality.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused could readily dispute whether losses are 'readily ascertainable' or whether a prohibition period chosen by the court meets the 'appropriate' test.
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.