Bill C-10 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 5, 2013
- Debated in principleNov. 5, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 30, 2014
- Passed the second chamberOct. 7, 2014
- Became lawNov. 5, 2014
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
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 5 October 2013, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco) (Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-10 amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and to provide for minimum penalties of imprisonment for repeat offenders. Trafficking would involve any of the following actions: • sale; • offer for sale; • possession for the purpose of sale; • transportation; • distribution; or • delivery. Under Bill C-10, the maximum penalty for a first offence would be 6 months imprisonment on summary conviction and 5 years imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. It also proposes mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment for repeat offenders where a high volume of tobacco products is involved. The threshold to be considered “high volume” would be 10,000 cigarettes or 10 kilograms of other tobacco products. The mandatory minimum penalties on indictment would be as follows: • 90 days incarceration on a second conviction; • 180 days incarceration on third conviction; and • 2 years less a day on subsequent convictions.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
63% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (657 words introduced, 608 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with only procedural and formatting updates such as assent date and chapter number. All offence definitions, penalties, and exceptions remained identical to the introduced version.
- Updated session and assent details on title page.
Before: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62 Elizabeth II, 2013”
After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014”
- Added royal assent date to final statute.
After: “ASSENTED TO 6th NOVEMBER, 2014”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets out a clear prohibition on selling or possessing unstamped tobacco with fixed quantity thresholds and escalating minimum jail terms for repeat offences. It borrows definitions and exceptions from the Excise Act, 2001, and leaves the start date to cabinet order.
Open to argument
“for the purpose of sale”
This phrase requires proof of intent, which can lead to factual disputes even with other objective elements present.“have the same meanings as in section 2 of the Excise Act, 2001”
The core terms are defined elsewhere, so readers must consult another statute to know exactly what is covered.
Clear-cut
“10,000 cigarettes or more or 10 kg or more of any other tobacco product, or the amount of raw leaf tobacco is 10 kg or more”
Numerical thresholds create a bright-line test for when the higher penalties apply.“minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days”
Specific day counts for second, third, and subsequent offences leave little room for interpretation.“No person shall sell, offer for sale, transport, deliver, distribute or have in their possession”
The list of prohibited acts is exhaustive and stated in ordinary language.
Discretion. The only significant discretion is the power of the Governor in Council to choose the coming-into-force date by order.
Challenging the law itself. A vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter could be brought because key terms are defined by reference to another Act, though the numerical triggers reduce the strength of such arguments.
Disputing a charge under it. Once the quantity and stamping status are proven, the offence elements and minimum penalties are fixed with little interpretive space for an accused.
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.