Bill C-55 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 11, 2013
- Debated in principleFeb. 25, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 20, 2013
- Passed the second chamberMarch 25, 2013
- Became lawMarch 26, 2013
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
- Denise BattersSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- François ChoquetteHe states the NDP will support the bill at third reading and calls it balanced.
- Robert Goguenexplicitly speaks in support to maintain police powers.
- Charlie Angusexplicitly states the NDP is supporting the bill while noting related issues
- Françoise Boivinstates plan to support sending bill to committee despite concerns.
- Raymond CôtéHe describes the bill as correcting a big problem in the Criminal Code in line with the court ruling.
- Marc-André Morinexpresses surprise at supporting an intelligent piece of legislation from the government
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 11 February 2013, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. In the decision of R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a wiretap authority without a court authorization in situations of imminent harm could be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, the Court declared that Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code (interception in exceptional circumstances), which was enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it contained no accountability measures. The Supreme Court gave Parliament until April 13, 2013 to amend the provision to make it constitutionally compliant. Bill C-55 amends the Criminal Code to provide, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Tse, safeguards related to the authority to intercept private communications without prior judicial authorization under section 184.4 of that Act. Among other things it: • requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass. · 2013-03-20 · Passed
How it changed on the way
82% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,209 words introduced, 1,750 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core provisions on section 184.4 interceptions, annual reports, and 90-day notifications remained intact from introduction to royal assent. Parliament added limited language allowing extensions for subsequent investigations and refined the structure of reporting requirements.
- Added paragraph allowing extensions for follow-on investigations.
Before: “the investigation of the offence to which the inter”
After: “the investigation of the offence to which the interception relates; or (b) a subsequent investigation of an offence commenced as a result of information obtained from the investigation referred to in paragraph (a).”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill supplies concrete numerical limits, a closed definition of police officer, and an enumerated list of required report contents, yet repeatedly hinges key powers on an officer's or judge's subjective belief or opinion. Those subjective thresholds create room for argument over when interception or extended secrecy is justified.
Open to argument
“reasonable grounds to believe that”
The phrase turns on the officer's personal assessment rather than an objective checklist of facts.“the judge is of the opinion that the interests of justice warrant granting the application”
Both 'opinion' and 'interests of justice' are open-ended standards that invite differing interpretations.“immediately necessary to prevent an offence that would cause serious harm”
Words such as 'immediately', 'necessary' and 'serious' lack fixed metrics and depend on context-specific judgment.
Clear-cut
“"police officer" means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace;”
A single, exhaustive definition removes ambiguity about who may act.“within 90 days after the day on which it occurred”
A fixed calendar period supplies a bright-line rule for notification.“each extension not to exceed three years”
An explicit maximum duration caps the length of any secrecy extension.
Discretion. Police officers decide whether the three statutory conditions are met and judges decide whether extensions are warranted by the 'interests of justice,' with no further regulatory narrowing supplied in the text.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'reasonable grounds to believe' and 'interests of justice' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 8 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether the officer's subjective belief met the urgency and necessity tests, but the three-part statutory list gives some concrete points to argue against.
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.