Bill C-36 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protecting Canada's Seniors Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 15, 2012
- Debated in principleJune 20, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 6, 2012
- Passed the second chamberDec. 12, 2012
- Became lawDec. 13, 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
- Jean-Guy DagenaisSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Robert GoguenPraises the bill for adding age and vulnerability as aggravating factors in sentencing.
- Raymond Côtéstates NDP is quite pleased as it responds to concerns and is a starting point.
- Laurin Liuexplicitly supports the measure as similar to one they proposed
- Scott Armstrongpresents the bill as another positive government initiative to support seniors
- Peter JulianExplicitly supports the bill while criticizing other government policies on seniors.
- Lynne YelichDefends existing Criminal Code protections and federal elder abuse initiatives.
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 15 March 2012, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) (Protecting Canada’s Seniors Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-36 amends the Criminal Code to add vulnerability due to age as an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. · 2012-06-20 · Passed
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (338 words introduced, 258 passed). A committee amended it.
minor changeintent kept
The core amendment adding vulnerability due to age as an aggravating factor in sentencing stayed identical from introduction to royal assent. Only procedural elements such as chapter numbering, assent date, and explanatory notes were adjusted.
- Removed explanatory notes detailing the amendment to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
Before: “EXPLANATORY NOTES Criminal Code Clause 2: Relevant portion of section 718.2: 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, .”
- Added chapter number and assent date to the statute version.
After: “60-61 ELIZABETH II —————— CHAPTER 29 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) [Assented to 14th December, 2012]”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The amendment relies on the undefined phrase 'significant impact' and open-ended references to 'other personal circumstances' when directing sentencing courts. These subjective standards invite case-by-case argument rather than clear, predictable application.
Open to argument
“evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim”
The word 'significant' sets a subjective threshold without any statutory definition or objective metric.
Clear-cut
“This Act comes into force 30 days after the day on which it receives royal assent.”
The coming-into-force rule uses a fixed calendar period after a single, verifiable event.
Discretion. Sentencing judges retain broad discretion to decide what counts as a 'significant impact' and which personal circumstances are relevant, with no regulatory or ministerial guidance supplied.
Challenging the law itself. A vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter could be brought, though success is uncertain because the factor only guides sentencing rather than creating a new offence.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused facing an increased sentence can readily argue that the Crown has not shown a 'significant impact' on the particular victim given the absence of any statutory test.
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.