Bill C-394 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberJune 15, 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.
- Donald Neil PlettSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- George BakerSenate · SenatorThe purpose of prohibiting recruitment of young people into gangs is agreed upon by everyone.
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
- technicalGeorge BakerAdd paragraph 196.1(5)(a) to ensure wiretap notice consistency for the new offence.Outcome not recorded in the debate · June 16, 2014 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The offence uses defined criminal-organization terms, fixed maximum and minimum sentences, and mandatory consecutive service, creating clear numerical rules. However the purpose element and verbs such as encourages or invites introduce subjective questions that can generate argument.
Open to argument
“recruits, solicits, encourages, coerces or invites a person to join the criminal organization”
the listed verbs are not further defined and cover a wide range of conduct.
Clear-cut
“under 18 years of age, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months”
supplies an objective age threshold and exact numerical penalties.“be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events”
imposes a mandatory consecutive-service rule with no discretionary exception stated.
Discretion. Almost no power is delegated to ministers or officials; sentencing outcomes are fixed by the statute itself.
Challenging the law itself. section 7 Charter claims of vagueness or overbreadth could be raised against the purpose requirement and breadth of the listed verbs.
Disputing a charge under it. an accused can readily dispute whether the required purpose existed or whether the conduct met one of the listed verbs.
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.