Bill C-464 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleMarch 3, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 22, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 9, 2010
- Became lawDec. 14, 2010
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Tommy BanksSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Scott Andrews5 interventions in debateHe moved the bill to third reading and stated it achieves the right balance.
- Peter Stoffer2 interventions in debateHe praised the bill as a positive response to tragedy and expressed pleasure at its introduction.
- Anne C. CoolsSenate · SenatorThe bill will amend bail provisions to support judges in weighing the safety of children and fill gaps exposed by Zachary Turner's murder.
- Mr. Michael SavageHe commended the member and expressed hope for all-party support of the bill.
- Scott SimmsHe congratulated the member and praised the bill for giving discretion to save lives.
- Bob DechertHe described the added words as very important for protecting children and endorsed the bill.
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
How it changed on the way
84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (304 words introduced, 274 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill was changed to expand the justification for detention from protecting the accused's own minor children to protecting any person under 18 years. This replaced specific language about the accused's children with broader wording about persons under 18.
- Replaced reference to accused's minor children with any person under 18.
Before: “or minor children of the accused”
After: “or any person under the age of 18 years”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The amendment uses objective anchors such as age 18 and specific listed factors but rests the core test on subjective judicial judgment about public safety and likelihood of future acts. This leaves ample room for argument over what facts meet the standard.
Open to argument
“necessary for the protection or safety of the public”
The phrase supplies no measurable threshold and invites differing opinions on what level of risk qualifies.“substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence”
Substantial likelihood is an undefined, evaluative standard rather than a fixed probability or list of offences.“having regard to all the circumstances”
The open-ended direction gives no limit on what may be considered, broadening discretion.
Clear-cut
“any person under the age of 18 years”
A clear numerical age supplies an objective category without further interpretation.“including any victim of or witness to the offence”
The clause names two concrete roles that must be considered, narrowing the scope of protected persons.
Discretion. Judges retain wide latitude to weigh the listed factors and decide what constitutes necessity; no regulations or ministerial directions are created by the text.
Challenging the law itself. The subjective standards of necessity and substantial likelihood readily engage section 7 Charter claims of vagueness or overbreadth in the context of pre-trial liberty.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can argue that the evidence does not meet the substantial-likelihood test, but success depends on the same open-ended judicial assessment rather than a bright-line rule.
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?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.