Bill C-10 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Safe Streets and Communities Act
An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 20, 2011
- Debated in principleSept. 28, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 5, 2011
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 29, 2012
- Became lawMarch 12, 2012
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
- Joy SmithPleased to participate and describes the bill as comprehensive legislation addressing serious issues.
- Robert GoguenSpeaks in favour of the bill at second reading as fulfilling election commitments on law and order.
- Dave MacKenzieCalls for unanimous support of the bill's objective to safeguard communities.
- Rob NicholsonIntroduces and promotes the bill as fulfilling government promises on crime reforms.
- Kerry-Lynne FindlayStates the bill fulfills the government's duty to protect citizens from crime and terrorism.
- Brent RathgeberPraises the bill as a comprehensive crime bill addressing key issues like victims of terrorism and offender accountability.
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 20 September 2011, the Minister of Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-10, An Act to enact the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act and to amend the State Immunity Act, the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other Acts (Safe Streets and Communities Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The bill groups together nine bills that had been dealt with separately during the 3rd session of the 40th Parliament. Part 1 of Bill C-10 creates a new act, the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, to introduce a specific cause of action for victims of terrorism, allowing them to sue for loss or damage as a result of actions punishable under the Criminal Code. This Part also amends the State Immunity Act to lift state immunity where a state has supported terrorist activities (state immunity being the general rule that prevents other states from being sued in Canada’s domestic courts). However, only states included in a list to be established by the Governor in Council may have their immunity lifted and be sued. Part 2 of Bill C-…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That · 2011-09-27 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsSenator unknownAllow victims of terrorism to sue listed foreign states for directly committing an act of terrorism.Adopted · Feb. 29, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
75% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (49,956 words introduced, 30,989 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The core cause of action for terrorism victims was retained but expanded with new plaintiff eligibility rules and a liability presumption. Amendments to the State Immunity Act added definitions and explicit references to lifted immunity.
- Expanded court jurisdiction to hear actions by adding Canadian plaintiffs regardless of connection to Canada.
Before: “(2) A court may hear and determine the action referred to in subsection (1) only if the action has a real and substantial connection to Canada.”
After: “(2) A court may hear and determine the action referred to in subsection (1) only if the action has a real and substantial connection to Canada or the plaintiff is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.”
- Added a presumption that the defendant committed the act causing loss if linked to a listed entity.
After: “(2.1) In an action under subsection (1), the defendant is presumed to have committed the act or omission that resulted in the loss or damage to the plaintiff if the court finds that”
- Updated description of who may be sued to include foreign states with lifted immunity.
Before: “(a) any listed entity or other person that committed the act or omission that resulted in the loss or damage;”
After: “(a) any listed entity, or foreign state whose immunity is lifted under section 6.1 of the State Immunity Act, or other person that committed the act or omission that resulted in the loss or damage;”
- Inserted definition of terrorist activity for State Immunity Act purposes.
After: “"terrorist activity" in respect of a foreign state has the same meaning as in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code, provided that a foreign state set out on the list referred to in subsection 6.1(2) does the act or omission on or after January 1, 1985.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact numerical penalties, fixed ages, and defined offences with repeated reliance on ministerial beliefs and reasonable-grounds tests. This creates clear rules for some conduct while leaving key listing, assistance, and review decisions open to argument.
Open to argument
“the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign state supported or supports terrorism”
Subjective satisfaction plus reasonable grounds standard invites disputes over what evidence suffices.“unless the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada's international relations or either Minister believes that to do so would be injurious to Canada's other interests”
Pure belief test with no objective criteria or defined interests.“to determine whether there are still reasonable grounds, as set out in subsection (2)”
Periodic review hinges on the same open-ended reasonable-grounds assessment.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year”
Fixed maximum and mandatory minimum terms leave no sentencing range discretion.“a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 16 years”
Specific age thresholds and belief element are stated without qualifiers.“on a balance of probabilities, that the thing”
Explicit civil standard of proof for forfeiture orders.
Discretion. Ministers and the Governor in Council hold wide power to create and review the list of foreign states, decide whether to assist judgment creditors, and determine what counts as injurious to relations or other interests.
Challenging the law itself. Vague reasonable-grounds and belief language could support a s. 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim, though many offence provisions are narrowly drawn.
Disputing a charge under it. Specific ages, minimum sentences and defined sexual-material criteria make factual disputes straightforward, but belief elements in luring and listing provisions allow some contest over accused or ministerial state of mind.
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, or departmental evaluations of the Safe Streets and Communities Act or Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act were identified. Court rulings demonstrate successful civil claims by terrorism victims against listed states like Iran, with substantial damages awarded and jurisdiction upheld.
- Haftlang v. Iran (Ontario Superior Court)courtCourt granted $200 million in damages against Iran under JVTA and State Immunity Act exceptions for terrorism support.
- Tracy v. Iran (Ontario Court of Appeal)courtUpheld enforcement of US judgments against Iran under JVTA, confirming plaintiff-friendly framework for recognition.
- Zarei v. Iran (related to Flight PS752)courtFamilies awarded $107 million; court confirmed terrorist activity but enforcement limited by diplomatic asset immunity.
- Western Undergraduate Psychology Journal (2014)studyArgues Bill C-10's harsher sentencing provisions are likely ineffective or counterproductive for reducing recidivism based on existing literature.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.