Bill C-444 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer)
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDone
- Passed the second chamberJune 4, 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.
- Jean-Guy DagenaisSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Senator DagenaisSenate · SenatorThe bill ensures courts treat personating a peace officer to commit another offence as an aggravating circumstance, expressing unified condemnation of exploiting public trust.
- Senator CampbellSenate · SenatorThe bill is symbolic but sends a message that personating an officer to commit crimes will be punished, and the senator concurs with the sponsor's statements.
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.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text adds one narrow mandatory rule for sentencing after a conviction under section 130. It leaves little room for argument about what the court must do once the facts are found.
Open to argument
“for the purpose of facilitating the commission of another offence”
The phrase requires proof of a subjective purpose that is not further defined in the supplied text.
Clear-cut
“the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance”
The word 'shall' creates a clear, non-discretionary duty once the facts are established.“If a person is convicted of an offence under section 130”
The trigger is tied to an existing, numbered Criminal Code section rather than an open-ended standard.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; the rule applies directly in court.
Challenging the law itself. The provision is a narrow, mandatory sentencing factor with no obvious vagueness or overbreadth on its face, limiting viable Charter arguments under section 7 or 12.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can dispute whether the personation was done for the required purpose, but once that fact is found the court has no discretion to ignore it.
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.