Bill C-217 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberMay 28, 2014
- Became lawJune 18, 2014
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Bob RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Senator LangSenate · Senatorargued that the acts are deliberate and unacceptable and that the penalties are appropriate
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
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
What the Senate tried to change
- narrows scopeRoméo Antonius Dallairenarrows the cemetery provision to objects associated with honouring war dead and removes the mandatory minimum fine for a first offenceVoted down · May 29, 2014 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text supplies fixed numerical minimum and maximum sentences plus a list of covered property types, yet it uses open-ended descriptors for which sites qualify. This mix leaves some interpretive room while keeping penalties black-and-white.
Open to argument
“primarily serves as a monument to honour persons who were killed or died as a consequence of a war”
The word 'primarily' calls for subjective judgment about a site's main purpose.“object associated with honouring or remembering those persons”
The phrase 'associated with' is undefined and can stretch to many items.
Clear-cut
“a fine of not less than $1,000”
States an exact dollar minimum for a first offence.“imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years”
Fixes a clear maximum term when prosecuted by indictment.
Discretion. The amendment grants no authority to ministers, officials or regulations; all penalties and elements are stated directly in the Code.
Challenging the law itself. The property definition could be attacked for vagueness under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether a given site meets the 'primarily serves' or 'associated with' tests.
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.