Bill C-299 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (kidnapping of young person)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedSept. 29, 2011
- Debated in principleFeb. 29, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 17, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 20, 2013
- Became lawJune 25, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Judy WhiteSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- David Wilks6 interventions in debateimposes mandatory minimum sentence on stranger kidnapping of child under 16
- Joy Smith3 interventions in debatestrongly supports the bill to strengthen legislation on kidnapping
- Ryan Leefhelps better protect our nation's children
- Kerry-Lynne Findlayexplicitly voices support for the bill as introduced
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
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. · 2012-02-29 · Passed
How it changed on the way
99% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (228 words introduced, 271 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The bill as introduced imposed a five-year minimum sentence for kidnapping anyone under 16. As passed, it exempts parents, guardians and those with lawful care, and requires courts to consider the victim's age and vulnerability.
- Added exception for parents, guardians or lawful caregivers in the minimum sentence clause.
Before: “to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;”
After: “to imprisonment for life and, unless the person who commits the offence is a parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of the person referred to in that paragraph, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years;”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The core minimum sentence rule uses clear numbers and an objective age threshold with a defined exception list. The added sentencing direction introduces a subjective factor that invites argument over its meaning and weight.
Open to argument
“the age and vulnerability of the victim”
Vulnerability is an undefined subjective standard that lacks an objective test and can be interpreted differently in each case.
Clear-cut
“under 16 years of age”
Uses a fixed numerical age that creates a bright-line test.“minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years”
States an exact term of years that leaves no room for a lower sentence outside the listed exception.“parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge”
Lists specific categories that narrow the exception to identifiable relationships.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers or regulations; the only discretion rests with sentencing courts when weighing the victim's vulnerability.
Challenging the law itself. Section 7 Charter vagueness argument could be raised against the term vulnerability, though the minimum sentence itself is narrowly drawn.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether they qualify as a person having the lawful care or charge, but the age threshold and five-year minimum are hard to contest once facts are found.
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.