Bill C-26 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedFeb. 26, 2014
- Debated in principleNov. 24, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMarch 27, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 10, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 2015
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 26 February 2014, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, to enact the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-26 amends the Criminal Code to • increase mandatory minimum penalties and maximum penalties for certain sexual offences against children; • increase maximum penalties for violations of prohibition orders, probation orders and peace bonds; • clarify and codify the rules regarding the imposition of consecutive and concurrent sentences; • require courts to impose, in certain cases, consecutive sentences on offenders who commit sexual offences against children; and • ensure that a court that imposes a sentence must take into consideration evidence that the offence in question was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence. It amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that spouses of the accused are 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 (8,138 words introduced, 5,533 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core penalty increases, witness rules, and database creation remained intact from introduction to royal assent. The main shift was a clarification that consecutive sentences apply specifically when multiple child sexual offences involve different children.
- Consecutive sentencing rule for multiple child sexual offences was expanded to require service against another child.
Before: “be served consecutively to a sen”
After: “be served consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment it imposes for a sexual offence committed against another child other than an offence under section 163.1.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill relies heavily on fixed numbers for prison terms, minimum sentences, age cut-offs and consecutive-sentencing triggers that leave little room for argument. A few phrases still turn on subjective judgments about risk and knowledge.
Open to argument
“who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature”
Uses an undefined risk standard that requires ongoing assessment rather than an objective test.“knowingly permits a person under the age of 18 years to resort to or to be in or on the premises”
Introduces a mental-state element open to factual dispute.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year”
States exact maximum and minimum terms in every offence provision.“if the complainant is under the age of 16 years, to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year”
Applies clear age thresholds and corresponding penalties.“the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences”
Removes judicial discretion by prescribing exactly what may be considered.
Discretion. Limited discretion remains with courts to decide consecutiveness in some cases and with police services to decide what information enters the public database.
Challenging the law itself. Mandatory minimum sentences could be challenged under s. 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual punishment.
Disputing a charge under it. Most obligations are defined by fixed numbers, ages and conviction sequences that are easy to verify from court records.
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.