Bill C-13 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 20, 2013
- Debated in principleApril 28, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 20, 2014
- Passed the second chamberDec. 3, 2014
- Became lawDec. 8, 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 20 November 2013, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Canadians from Online Crime Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bullying, including cyberbullying, is a form of aggression, usually among children and youth but not always. When the bullying behaviour occurs via electronic means, it is often referred to as cyberbullying. More recently, a new form of cyberbullying has emerged that is not covered by the criminal law. It involves the distribution of intimate (sexual) images without the consent of the person depicted in the image. Bill C-13 amends the Criminal Code to provide for, among other things: • a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well as complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images, the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence, a recognizance order to be issued to prevent the distribution of such images and the restriction of the use of a com…
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
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (21,326 words introduced, 15,655 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and related Criminal Code amendments remained intact from introduction to royal assent. During passage, 76% of the text was altered through refinements to numbering, cross-references, procedural clauses, and expanded provisions on seizures and orders.
- Added chapter and assent details to the final statute version.
After: “62-63 ELIZABETH II —————— CHAPTER 31 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act [Assented to 9th December, 2014]”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes narrow, numbered penalties and defined terms with subjective standards such as reasonable expectation of privacy and court opinion. This leaves room for argument over what conduct is covered and when orders may be varied.
Open to argument
“in respect of which the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence is committed”
Uses an undefined, context-dependent standard that requires case-by-case judgment rather than an objective test.“if, in the opinion of the court, the variation is desirable because of changed circumstances”
Grants broad discretion to alter prohibition orders based on the court's subjective view.“the court considers appropriate”
Duration of internet-use bans is left to judicial discretion without fixed limits or criteria.“serves the public good and does not extend beyond what serves the public good”
Relies on an open-ended defence whose scope is not further defined in the text.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Sets a clear maximum sentence for the main offence.“guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or (b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction”
States exact penalty options for breach of a prohibition order.
Discretion. Courts receive wide latitude to set prohibition lengths, vary conditions, and decide public-good defences, with little further guidance left to regulations or ministers.
Challenging the law itself. Subjective phrases such as reasonable expectation of privacy and public good could support vagueness or overbreadth claims under Charter section 7 or section 2(b).
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily dispute consent, privacy expectations, recklessness, or whether conduct served the public good, requiring factual findings on each element.
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.