Bill S-2 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 16, 2010
- Debated in principleMarch 28, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 10, 2010
- Passed the second chamberDec. 7, 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.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Bob RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Maria MouraniStates the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the bill on the sex offender registry.
- Jim MalowayStates the bill will be supported at second reading for committee review.
- Don DaviesStates New Democrats support the bill and its review for public safety.
- Mark HollandExpresses strong approval for giving police every possible tool via the registry to prevent sex crimes.
- Brian MurphyDescribes the bill as making existing law better for the whole country.
- Dave MacKenziePraises the bill as a crucial step for public safety and police tools.
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 17 March 2010, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act), in the Senate and it was given first reading. Bill S-2 amends the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, the Criminal Code, the National Defence Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. Among other things, it • requires that sexual offence convictions would result in an automatic inclusion in the Sex Offender Registry; • makes DNA sampling mandatory for all convicted sex offenders; • provides police access to the Sex Offenders Registry; • establish an administrative process to enable registration of Canadians convicted abroad of sex offences and returning to Canada under the International Transfer of Offenders Act; • notifications to other police jurisdictions when high-risk registered offenders travel; and • amendments to the National Defence Act to ensure that reforms apply to the military justice system.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsGeorge BakerAllow judicial discretion to exempt summary conviction offences from mandatory registry placement.Voted down · May 11, 2010 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
62% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,835 words introduced, 14,458 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill's core goals of automatic registry inclusion, mandatory DNA sampling, and expanded police access stayed intact, but 62% of the introduced text was rewritten or dropped. Specific lists of historical offences, order-making procedures, and cross-references to the National Defence Act were refined or completed before royal assent.
- Added explicit reference to National Defence Act orders in the previous-offence clause.
Before: “no order was made under subsection (1) or u”
After: “no order was made under subsection (1) or under subsection 227.01(1) of the National Defence Act in connection with that offence.”
- Added new subsection allowing court to defer consideration of registration order.
After: “(4) If the court does not consider the matter under subsection (1) or”
- Clarified that certain voyeurism and indecent-act offences trigger registration only on prosecutor's application.
Before: “(2) Subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition "designated offence" in subsection 490.011(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:”
After: “(2) Subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition "designated offence" in subsection 490.011(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill expands registration triggers through exhaustive lists of specific Criminal Code sections and fixed durations tied to maximum sentences. A few subjective judgments remain on equivalence and intent.
Open to argument
“in the opinion of the Attorney General or minister of justice, equivalent to an offence”
Requires officials to judge equivalence, creating room for argument over coverage.
Clear-cut
“subsection 173(2) (exposure)”
Names the exact provision and adds it to the primary designated offence list with no further test.
Discretion. The Attorney General or territorial minister decides when to serve notices and whether foreign offences are equivalent, while prosecutors must prove intent or prior offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
Challenging the law itself. The phrase 'equivalent to' may be challenged under section 7 of the Charter as vague or overbroad because it leaves equivalence to official opinion.
Disputing a charge under it. Once a conviction for a listed offence is shown, the registration order follows automatically or on proof of prior conviction, leaving little factual room to dispute the breach itself.
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
No statutory or parliamentary reviews, Auditor General or PBO reports, departmental evaluations, or peer-reviewed studies assessing whether the Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act (Bill S-2) achieved its objectives of automatic registry inclusion, mandatory DNA sampling, enhanced police access, or registration of foreign convictions were identified. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Ndhlovu (2022) struck down key automatic and lifetime registration provisions as unconstitutional, citing sparse evidence of effectiveness in aiding investigations or prevention.
- Privacy Commissioner of Canada appearance on Bill S-2 (2010)reviewRecommended an independent third-party evaluation of the registry's effectiveness, noting it had not occurred and citing lack of evidence from other jurisdictions on crime reduction or investigative utility.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.