Bill C-30 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 31, 2010
- Debated in principleDec. 10, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 10, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 21, 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
- W. David AngusSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Marlene Jenningsexpresses pleasure at finally debating the needed bill after long wait
- Daniel Petitcalls it an important bill to improve community safety and offender compliance
- Ed Faststates the bill is supported by the Liberal Party and corrects an oversight
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 31 May 2010, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the decision R. v. Shoker, decided that such demands for bodily samples were unlawful. As a result, police and probation officers have been unable to obtain blood and other samples under probation orders, Bill C-30 amends the Criminal Code to re-establish the discretion of a court to impose conditions requiring bodily samples to be provided to police and probation officers on demand or at regular intervals where the court sees fit to prohibit the individual from consuming drugs and alcohol in order to enforce compliance with a prohibition on consuming drugs or alcohol imposed in a probation order, a conditional sentence order or a recognizance under section 810, 810.01, 810.1 or 810.2 of the Criminal Code.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
75% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,299 words introduced, 4,692 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill received royal assent with only formal updates such as the chapter number, year, and assent date added to the title page. All substantive provisions on bodily sample demands under probation orders, conditional sentences, and recognizances stayed exactly as introduced.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes objective rules such as fixed intervals of at least seven days and 24-hour minimums with repeated subjective triggers and wide regulatory power. Much of the operational detail on sampling, analysis, storage and destruction is left to ministers and regulations rather than spelled out in the statute.
Open to argument
“if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the offender has breached a condition”
The belief standard is subjective and invites disputes over what facts justify a demand.“unless the samples are reasonably expected to be used as evidence”
The phrase 'reasonably expected' is open-ended and depends on an official's assessment.“any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable”
Both 'reasonable' and 'considers desirable' delegate broad discretion to the judge.
Clear-cut
“subsequent samples must be taken at regular intervals of at least seven days”
A clear numerical minimum removes argument about timing.“The first sample may not be taken earlier than 24 hours after the offender is served with the notice”
A fixed waiting period supplies an objective bright line.“for a period of not more than 12 months”
A maximum duration is stated in exact terms.
Discretion. Ministers, designated officials and the Governor in Council decide who may demand or take samples, where and how they are taken and analyzed, how long samples and records are kept, and which bodily substances are prescribed.
Challenging the law itself. Section 8 Charter claims could be brought against the compelled taking of bodily samples, but the 'reasonable grounds' language and destruction rules may narrow the challenge.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether the demanding officer actually held reasonable grounds or whether the sample was taken within the statutory time windows, but the certificate provisions limit some factual arguments.
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.