Bill C-2 explained in plain English
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)
Federal Parliament bill summary, status, timeline, sponsor, votes, and official sources.
At a glance
Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 41st Parliament, 1st Session. MP vote breakdowns appear when the House of Commons publishes a recorded division export for that bill. Senate and House stage details include official debate/sitting links when LEGISinfo publishes them.
Our plain-language take, written for civic education.
Source: By PoliticalData.ca
Bill C-2 amends the Criminal Code to introduce case management judges, allow larger juries (13 or 14 jurors), protect juror identity, streamline direct indictment procedures, and make certain legal rulings binding across related or retried cases to improve fairness and efficiency in large, complex criminal trials.
This federal law (Bill C-2) amends the Criminal Code to manage "mega-trials"—large, complex criminal cases with many accused persons or large volumes of evidence. It introduces new procedures to make these trials fairer and more efficient. The law creates a new role called a "case management judge" who can be appointed before or during a trial. This judge helps organize the trial by identifying key witnesses, encouraging the parties to reach agreements on facts, setting schedules and deadlines, and deciding certain legal issues (like whether evidence should be admitted) before the main trial begins. Pre-trial decisions made by the case management judge are binding on the parties during the trial, even if a different judge hears the main evidence—unless fresh evidence changes the situation and fairness requires otherwise. The law also allows judges to swear in 13 or 14 jurors instead of the usual 12 in complex trials, with extra jurors serving as backups in case a regular juror must be discharged. Prosecutors and defence lawyers get more opportunities to challenge jurors in cases with extra jurors. The law also protects jurors' identities by allowing courts to ban publication of juror names and information that could reveal who they are. The law simplifies the use of "direct indictments" (a way prosecutors can charge someone) by ensuring that when a direct indictment is issued for the same or related offence, the original bail conditions still apply. It also allows courts to delay when an order to split a trial takes effect until a later date or until a particular event happens—useful for keeping decisions consistent across related trials. In cases where a trial fails (mistrial) and a new trial begins, certain legal decisions made during the first trial about evidence disclosure, evidence admissibility, and Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues remain binding on the parties in the new trial—again, unless the court finds it would be unfair. The law received royal assent on June 26, 2011, but most of its provisions come into force on dates set later by the Governor in Council (the federal cabinet).
- Establishes the role of 'case management judge' who can be appointed before jury selection (or before evidence is presented in judge-only trials) to organize complex trials and make pre-trial legal decisions
- Grants case management judges power to help identify witnesses, encourage settlements of disputed facts, set deadlines, and decide legal issues related to evidence disclosure, evidence admissibility, Charter rights, expert witnesses, and trial severance (splitting of counts or accused) before the main trial begins
- Makes decisions made by a case management judge binding on the parties throughout the trial, even if a different judge hears the main evidence, unless fresh evidence or fairness concerns require otherwise
- Allows courts to order that an order splitting a trial (severance order) takes effect at a later date or upon a specified event, to ensure consistent decisions in related cases
- Permits judges to swear in 13 or 14 jurors instead of the standard 12 in trials where the judge considers it necessary for proper administration of justice
- Increases the number of peremptory challenges (challenges without stated reason) available to prosecutors and defence lawyers when 13 or 14 jurors are sworn (one extra challenge for 13 jurors, two extra for 14 jurors)
- Allows courts to order that 13 or 14 jurors hear the evidence, with extra jurors discharged by random draw after the judge's instructions to the jury but before the jury retires to decide the verdict
- Enables courts to protect juror identity by banning publication of jurors' names and information that could reveal their identity, or limiting access to and use of such information
- Streamlines the use of direct indictments by ensuring that when a direct indictment is preferred for the same or an included offence, existing bail conditions continue to apply
- Requires that if two unsworn jurors are drawn to decide a challenge to a juror in cases with 13 or 14 jurors, those appointed jurors serve until the full jury (12, 13, or 14 as ordered) is sworn
- Provides that in a mistrial, legal rulings made during the trial about evidence disclosure, evidence admissibility, and Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues remain binding in any new trial, unless fairness requires otherwise
- Allows a judge to continue a trial with a judge and jury or restart it after a mistrial without requiring the accused to make a new election of trial type
- Accused persons in large, complex criminal trials who may face case management procedures, larger juries, and decisions made before their trial begins
- Prosecutors handling complex cases where case management judges may be appointed
- Defence counsel representing accused in cases subject to case management
- Judges (including chief justices and chief judges) who must appoint or act as case management judges
- Jurors in 'mega-trials' who may be one of 13 or 14 jurors instead of 12, and whose identity may be protected from publication
- Courts at the trial level conducting jury and non-jury criminal proceedings
- Provincial court judges conducting indictable offence proceedings
- Sheriffs and prison officials who may need to transport accused persons for joint hearings in related trials
- Prosecutors or accused persons (or a case management judge on their own motion) may apply for appointment of a case management judge, but the Chief Justice or designate decides whether to appoint one
- A case management judge must order a hearing before making any legal rulings about evidence disclosure, admissibility, Charter rights, expert witnesses, or trial severance
- A case management judge must work to promote a fair and efficient trial and ensure evidence on the merits is presented without interruption
- A case management judge must ensure that information about witnesses, admissions, trial length estimates, orders, and remaining issues is recorded in the court file for the trial judge who hears the evidence
- Prosecutors and defence counsel must provide information to case management judges and cooperate with efforts to set deadlines and identify key issues
- Trial judges must proceed continuously in cases that had a case management judge, subject to necessary adjournments
- Judges hearing evidence in mistrial cases may (but need not) continue the trial or restart it without requiring a new election by the accused
- Jurors summoned for mega-trials may be one of 13 or 14 instead of 12 and may be randomly discharged after judicial instructions if not needed for deliberations
- Prosecutors and defence have increased peremptory challenges (challenges without cause) in cases with 13 or 14 jurors (one extra for 13 jurors, two extra for 14 jurors)
- Courts may order that juror identities not be published or that access to juror information be limited
- In related trials, Chief Justices or designates may order joint hearings on specific evidence and Charter issues to ensure consistent decisions
- Officers holding indictments for trials in different locations must transmit them to the correct court when a joint hearing order is issued
- June 26, 2011: Royal assent received
- To be fixed by Governor in Council: Sections 1–6, subsections 7(2) and 7(4), and sections 10, 11, and 14–16 come into force
- To be fixed by Governor in Council: Subsections 7(1) and 7(3) and sections 8, 9, 12, and 13 come into force
- The bill does not specify which trials or cases will be considered 'mega-trials' or when a case management judge 'must' be appointed—the decision is discretionary based on whether it is 'necessary for the proper administration of justice,' a standard that is not defined in the bill
- The bill does not provide detailed guidance on how much time a case management judge's pre-trial decisions should take or how this process should be scheduled in practice
- The bill does not explain what happens if a case management judge and the trial judge disagree about whether fresh evidence justifies departing from earlier rulings—the test is whether the court is 'satisfied' it serves the interests of justice, but no procedure or standard for this dispute is provided
- The bill allows severance orders to be made effective at a 'specified later date' or 'on the occurrence of a specified event,' but does not explain how long such delays can be or provide examples of when this would be appropriate
- The bill allows courts to protect juror identity by restricting publication or access to information that 'could disclose' juror identity, but does not define what types of information (addresses, employer, photos, etc.) fall into this category
- The bill does not explain the practical process by which a case management judge and trial judge coordinate if they are different people, or what communication or case materials are shared between them
- The bill states that in related trials, 'if it is in the interests of justice, including ensuring consistent decisions,' a joint hearing may be held, but does not define how many related trials trigger this consideration or what constitutes 'related'
- The bill permits 13 or 14 jurors but does not specify criteria for when this should be ordered—it only says 'if the judge considers it advisable in the interests of justice'
- The bill does not explain whether the jury size decision (12, 13, or 14) must be made before or after jury selection begins, or whether parties have input on this choice
- The bill does not address how extra jurors are treated during trial (do they sit in the box? in the gallery? when do they learn they may be discharged?) or how they are informed before being randomly discharged
- The bill does not clarify whether a mistrial includes only formal declarations of mistrial or also situations where a jury cannot reach a verdict (hung jury)
- The bill does not explain whether decisions binding across a mistrial and new trial include procedural rulings or only substantive evidentiary and Charter rulings
- The bill provides that some provisions come into force 'on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council' but does not specify when that order might be made, leaving the in-force date uncertain
Adds new rule stating that when a direct indictment is preferred for the same or an included offence, any existing bail order, appearance notice, promise to appear, summons, undertaking, or recognizance continues to apply to the new indictment.
Source: Section 2(1)
Makes minor technical correction to the French version of Criminal Code rules about what information a party must provide when requesting evidence to be presented at a preliminary inquiry.
Source: Section 3
Adds entirely new Part XVIII.1 (sections 551.1 to 551.7) creating the role of case management judge, defining their powers to organize trials and make pre-trial decisions, and establishing procedures for joint hearings in related cases.
Source: Section 4
Allows courts to make orders splitting trials (severance orders) effective at a later date or upon a specified event if it serves the interests of justice, particularly to ensure consistent decisions. Also provides that legal rulings about evidence and Charter rights made before the severance order takes effect remain binding on the parties.
Source: Section 5
Clarifies that courts may amend defective indictments to fix defects that are apparent on their face, either before or after an accused enters a plea (with the court's permission after plea).
Source: Section 6
Permits judges to order that 13 or 14 jurors be sworn instead of 12; allows courts to order juror names and numbers to be called out in open court if necessary for proper administration of justice; updates procedures for drawing additional juror cards when more than 12 people must be selected; applies the jury selection process to all 12, 13, or 14 jurors who will hear evidence.
Source: Section 7
Increases the number of peremptory challenges (challenges without stated reason) available to prosecutor and defence by one when 13 jurors are ordered, or two when 14 jurors are ordered.
Source: Section 8
Updates rules for how two unsworn jurors (or two appointed persons) are sworn to hear challenges to a seated juror, to reflect that the final jury may consist of 12, 13, or 14 jurors.
Source: Section 9
Updates the procedure for recalling persons originally directed to stand by, to accommodate selection of 12, 13, or 14 jurors.
Source: Section 10
Clarifies that alternate jurors attend at the start of evidence and replace absent jurors in the order their cards were drawn, applicable to juries of 12, 13, or 14 jurors.
Source: Section 11
States that the 12, 13, or 14 jurors present at the start of evidence presentation form the jury that will hear the evidence.
Source: Section 12
Establishes procedure by which if more than 12 jurors remain after the judge's charge to the jury, the judge randomly draws one card (if 13 jurors) or two cards (if 14 jurors) to identify which jurors are discharged, reducing the jury to 12 for final deliberations.
Source: Section 13
Provides that when a mistrial occurs, legal rulings about evidence disclosure, evidence admissibility, and Charter of Rights and Freedoms made during the first trial remain binding in any new trial, unless the court determines fairness requires otherwise.
Source: Section 14
Clarifies that if a trial with a judge and jury begins but no verdict is reached (mistrial), the judge may either continue the trial or start it over from the beginning without requiring the accused to make a new election of trial type.
Source: Section 15
Extends relevant provisions of Parts XVI (compelling appearance), XVIII (indictable offences), XVIII.1 (case management judge), XX (trial procedures), and XX.1 (sentencing) to apply to provincial court proceedings, with necessary adaptations.
Source: Section 16
The streamlined procedures for direct indictments make use of this section easier by ensuring bail conditions automatically apply when a direct indictment is preferred.
Source: Section 2
Generated using AI from official bill text. Not legal advice. It is written by PoliticalData.ca for civic education, automatically checked and spot-reviewed before publishing.
Official textParliamentary Process
The Senate conducted a pre-study of Bill C-2, which involved readings and committee consideration, before the bill proceeded and eventually received Royal Assent.
This artifact describes the 'Senate pre-study' stage for Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mega-trials. The pre-study occurred on June 22 and June 23, 2011, with a first reading, second reading, committee consideration, and third reading all taking place on those dates within the Senate. This stage happened before the bill was sent to the House of Commons. The artifact also notes that the bill ultimately received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011, becoming Statutes of Canada 2011, chapter 16. The stage state is listed as 'Not completed,' which may refer to the pre-study process itself or its completion relative to the overall legislative timeline as presented in this specific artifact.
On June 14, 2011, the Senate introduced a new Senator and proceeded with various procedural matters, including authorizing a committee to pre-study Bill C-2, tabled reports, debated several issues, and adopted motions concerning committee meetings and sittings.
On June 14, 2011, the Senate proceedings included the introduction of a new Senator, Josée Verner, and congratulations to her and other returning Senators. There were several notices of motions, including one to authorize the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to study the subject matter of Bill C-2 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)) before the bill officially came before the Senate. Several reports were tabled, and various inquiries and debates took place on topics including contraband tobacco, government procurement, RCMP operations, parliamentary reform, arts and culture funding, the budget, and the situation in Libya. Procedural motions were adopted to adjust sitting times, allow committees to meet on Mondays, and permit electronic coverage of committee proceedings. The Senate also authorized committees to engage necessary staff for their work.
This record details the completion of Bill C-2's stages in the Senate, including first, second, and third readings, committee review, and its eventual receipt of Royal Assent.
This artifact describes the procedural steps Bill C-2 went through in the Senate. It indicates that the bill had its first reading on June 22, 2011, and subsequently completed its second reading, committee consideration, and third reading by June 23, 2011. The bill then received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011. The artifact also notes a Senate pre-study process that occurred concurrently, involving first reading, second reading, committee consideration, and third reading for the bill within that separate study context.
On June 22, 2011, the Senate received Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), for its first reading as part of a day that included various other Senate proceedings and debates on unrelated topics.
On June 22, 2011, in the Senate, Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), received its first reading. This artifact is a record of the Senate's sitting on that day, which included various other proceedings such as Senators' Statements on diverse topics, Routine Proceedings where reports were tabled and notices of motions were given, Question Period on various government issues, and the consideration of other bills and motions. The record shows the motion to extend the sitting was adopted, and later, Bill C-2 was received from the House of Commons and read for the first time. The debates in this record primarily focus on the procedural aspects of the Senate's business and discussions on unrelated matters, rather than detailed debate on the specific content of Bill C-2 at this first reading stage.
This record details the completion of the First Reading stage for Bill C-2 in the Senate, while the accompanying House of Commons Hansard from June 16, 2011, extensively discusses the bill's proposed amendments to streamline complex criminal trials during its Second Reading.
This document is a record of the First Reading stage for Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), in the Senate. The record indicates that this stage was completed on June 22, 2011. The provided text focuses on debates and proceedings in the House of Commons on June 16, 2011, concerning various bills, including Bill C-2, which was at its second reading stage in that chamber. The text details discussions around improving the efficiency of long and complex criminal trials, often referred to as 'mega-trials'. The proposed changes aim to strengthen case management, reduce duplication of processes, and improve criminal procedure. Specific measures discussed include the appointment of a case management judge, allowing for joint hearings of preliminary issues in separate trials, maintaining bail or detention orders when a direct indictment is preferred for the same charges, allowing courts to amend technical defects in direct indictments, increasing the number of jurors, and enhancing juror identity protection. The discussions highlight the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, reforms in evidence law, and new statutory provisions on the length and complexity of trials. The text also includes a point of order where the Minister of Labour announced an agreement in principle between Air Canada and the Canadian Auto Workers, leading to the end of a work stoppage.
This document records the discussion surrounding the first reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding mega-trials, in the Senate.
The Senate's first reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mega-trials, was completed. This artifact is a record of discussion related to the bill's first reading.
This record details a speech given during the first reading of Bill C-2 in the Senate on June 22, 2011, though the provided text primarily contains House of Commons debates from a different date on unrelated topics.
This artifact is a record of a speech given during the first reading of Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), in the Senate on June 22, 2011. The speech was a response related to the bill's first reading. The provided text appears to be from the House of Commons debates on June 16, 2011, discussing various other matters and bills, rather than the Senate's first reading of Bill C-2. Therefore, the specific procedural activity of the Senate's first reading of Bill C-2, including any responses or discussions, is not detailed in this source text. The text does contain discussions about other bills and parliamentary procedures, but these do not directly relate to the Senate's first reading of Bill C-2 on the specified date.
During a House of Commons debate on June 16, 2011, Members discussed Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, focusing on procedural reforms to manage and expedite complex 'mega-trials' by introducing case management judges, streamlining processes, and enhancing juror protection.
This artifact is a record of a debate in the House of Commons concerning Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, on June 16, 2011. The debate focused on proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at improving the management and efficiency of lengthy and complex trials, often referred to as 'mega-trials'. Speakers discussed the causes of trial delays, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, changes in evidence law, and increased statutory complexity. The proposed solutions included appointing case management judges, streamlining procedures for direct indictments, and increasing the number of jurors. Concerns were raised about potential impacts on accused persons' rights and the need for sufficient resources. The debate also touched on the broader context of criminal justice system efficiency and the role of various stakeholders.
On June 22, 2011, the Senate held the first reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mega-trials, following its passage in the House of Commons, while also conducting other legislative business and debates.
This artifact is a record of the Senate's proceedings on June 22, 2011. It details the first reading of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The record includes various other Senate business, such as senators' statements on different topics, tabling of reports, notices of motions, and debates on other bills, including Bill C-3, an act to implement provisions of the 2011 budget. The main procedural event related to Bill C-2 was its introduction and first reading in the Senate, following its passage in the House of Commons. The debate surrounding Bill C-2 focused on the challenges of managing long and complex criminal trials, commonly referred to as "mega-trials," and proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to improve efficiency and fairness in the justice system.
The Senate completed its second reading of Bill C-2 on June 16, 2011, agreeing to refer it to committee, before the bill ultimately received Royal Assent.
This artifact describes the Senate's second reading stage for Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The stage was completed on June 16, 2011. The Senate agreed to the bill at second reading and referred it to a committee. The bill later received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011.
The Senate sitting on June 22, 2011, featured a debate on Bill C-2 (mega-trials), the second reading of Bill C-3 (budget implementation), and other procedural business and committee reports.
This artifact is a record of a Senate sitting on June 22, 2011. The sitting included various discussions and procedural matters, such as tabling reports, introducing motions, and question period. A significant portion of the sitting was dedicated to the second reading debate of Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mega-trials. The bill was received from the House of Commons and then read a second time before being referred to committee. Other business included debates on budget implementation (Bill C-3), the Speech from the Throne, and various committee studies.
During the Senate's second reading debate on Bill C-2 concerning "mega-trials," senators discussed procedural measures to improve the efficiency and fairness of complex criminal trials, while also considering resource allocation and jurisdictional aspects.
This artifact is a record of a debate in the Senate during the second reading stage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The debate focused on procedural aspects and potential impacts of the bill. Several members discussed the bill's aim to improve the efficiency and speed of long and complex criminal trials, often referred to as "mega-trials." Key proposals included appointing a case management judge to oversee proceedings, reducing duplication in legal processes, and enhancing juror protection by allowing for more jurors and limiting public access to juror information. Concerns were raised about the potential for the bill to be applied too broadly, the need for sufficient resources for judges, and the impact on provincial jurisdiction regarding judicial appointments. The debate also touched on the importance of balancing efficiency with the rights of the accused and the integrity of the justice system. While the artifact focuses on the procedural debate, it notes that the bill aims to address challenges arising from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, evolving evidence law, and new statutory provisions.
During a House of Commons debate on Bill C-2 (Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act), the discussion was largely dominated by the ongoing Air Canada labour dispute and the government's proposed back-to-work legislation, overshadowing the procedural discussion of the bill itself.
This record documents a debate in the House of Commons regarding Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act. While the bill's purpose is to amend the Criminal Code to address "mega-trials" (long and complex criminal trials), the provided text focuses heavily on a separate, concurrent labour dispute involving Air Canada and its union. The debate touches upon the government's proposed legislation to end the Air Canada work stoppage, with various members expressing concerns about government intervention in labour relations, the impact on collective bargaining, and the fairness of back-to-work legislation. The discussion also includes commentary on the necessity of Bill C-2 itself, with members from different parties acknowledging its importance in improving the efficiency of the justice system, particularly in handling complex trials. However, the primary focus of this specific debate record is the discussion and reaction to the Air Canada labour situation and the government's proposed legislative response to it.
During a debate on Bill C-2, Members of Parliament discussed proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at making complex criminal trials more efficient and preventing their collapse due to delays.
This artifact is a record of debate in the House of Commons on June 16, 2011, concerning Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The debate focused on proposed changes to streamline complex and lengthy criminal trials, often referred to as 'mega-trials', to prevent them from collapsing due to procedural delays. Key proposals included appointing a case management judge, reducing duplication of processes, and enhancing juror protection. While there was general agreement on the need for such reforms, there were discussions and concerns raised about specific provisions and the potential impact on the justice system and accused persons' rights. The bill was ultimately read a second time and referred to a committee.
During a debate on the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act (Bill C-2), Members of Parliament discussed procedural reforms to manage complex "mega-trials" more effectively, while also noting the resolution of an Air Canada work stoppage that had led to related legislation.
This artifact is a record of a debate in the House of Commons concerning Bill C-2, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, which aims to address lengthy and complex "mega-trials". During the debate, Members of Parliament discussed the challenges posed by such trials, the causes, and proposed solutions. The debate included discussions on the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, reforms to evidence law, new Criminal Code provisions, and the rise of organized crime. Key proposals in the bill include appointing a case management judge, reducing duplication of processes, increasing the number of jurors, and improving juror protection. There was also a brief discussion about the potential impact of provincial judge appointments on trial efficiency. The artifact notes that the bill was eventually passed and referred to a committee. Separately, the record also shows a Minister of Labour announcing a resolution to a work stoppage at Air Canada, which had prompted the government to introduce legislation to ensure continued air service.
During the Senate's second reading debate on Bill C-2, senators discussed proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at improving the management and efficiency of complex "mega-trials" by introducing measures such as case management judges and streamlined procedures.
This record details a Senate debate at the second reading stage for Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning "mega-trials". Senator Bob Runciman, as the sponsor, explained the bill's purpose: to provide the Canadian criminal justice system with better tools to manage long and complex cases, often referred to as "mega-trials". He highlighted that these trials face challenges due to the number of accused, complexity of evidence, and legal motions, which can significantly prolong proceedings and even lead to trials collapsing. The bill aims to improve case management, reduce duplication, and ensure timely adjudication of legal issues. Key proposed changes include appointing a case management judge to oversee preliminary phases, allowing some preliminary decisions to remain binding in new trials after a mistrial, enabling joint hearings for similar preliminary motions in related trials, and allowing for more jurors to be sworn in to mitigate mistrials due to juror loss. The debate included questions and comments from other senators, such as Senator Hugh Segal and Senator Anne C. Cools, who discussed the procedural aspects, potential for delaying tactics, and the necessity of legislative changes. Senator George Baker also provided an in-depth analysis of the bill's provisions and their implications, referencing past court cases and legal principles. The discussion concluded with the bill being read a second time and referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The Senate completed its committee review of Bill C-2 on June 23, 2011, before the bill ultimately received royal assent.
This record describes the Senate's Consideration in Committee stage for Bill C-2, which was completed on June 23, 2011. This stage is part of the legislative process where a bill is examined in detail by a committee. The overall bill has since received royal assent.
On June 23, 2011, the Senate completed committee business on Bill C-2 (mega-trials), debated and passed several other bills, and heard statements on various national and international issues.
The Senate proceeded with various items of business on June 23, 2011. This included the presentation of committee reports, including a report on Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), which was presented by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Following the presentation of this report, the Senate proceeded to third reading of Bill C-2. The Senate also debated and passed other bills, including Appropriation Bills C-8 and C-9, and Bill C-3, the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Bill. Additionally, Senators made statements on various topics, including anniversaries, international affairs, and parliamentary reform. Routine proceedings included the tabling of annual reports and the introduction of various notices of motion and inquiries regarding committee studies and other matters.
The Senate completed the third reading of Bill C-2 on June 23, 2011, before it received royal assent.
This artifact details the completion of the Senate's third reading of Bill C-2, "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)", on June 23, 2011. This stage is a procedural step where the Senate agreed to the bill. The bill later received royal assent on June 26, 2011.
On June 23, 2011, the Senate engaged in routine proceedings, question period, and debates on various matters including committee reports, supply bills, and Bill C-3, while also noting the third reading of Bill C-2 which had already received Royal Assent.
This Senate sitting on June 23, 2011, included routine proceedings, question period, and orders of the day. Most of the sitting involved debates and discussions on various topics, including the anniversary of the Girl Guides in Nova Scotia and Parks Canada, tributes to individuals, international affairs concerning Syria, scientific research on oil sands, and parliamentary reform. Several reports were tabled, and various committees were authorized to undertake studies. The sitting also included debates on Appropriation Bills C-8 and C-9, and the third reading of Bill C-3, the Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act. Finally, Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), which had already received Royal Assent, was mentioned as having its report presented and was discussed at third reading.
This record shows Bill C-2, concerning mega-trials, completing its first reading in the House of Commons and tracing its path through subsequent legislative stages to Royal Assent.
This artifact details the first reading of Bill C-2 in the House of Commons on June 13, 2011. First reading is a procedural step where a bill is formally introduced to the House. The provided text also outlines subsequent stages the bill went through in both the House of Commons and the Senate, including second reading, committee consideration, report stage, and third reading, as well as a pre-study in the Senate. The bill ultimately received royal assent on June 26, 2011, becoming Statutes of Canada 2011, c. 16. Speeches from the sponsor and respondents at second reading in the House of Commons are also noted, as well as speeches from the sponsor and a respondent at second reading in the Senate.
On June 13, 2011, the House of Commons sat to debate the budget, hear statements by members, and conduct oral question period, during which a bill related to criminal trials was introduced.
This document is a record of a sitting of the House of Commons on June 13, 2011. It details the proceedings, including debates on the budget, statements by members on various topics, and oral questions concerning government actions and policies. A bill, the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act, was introduced and read for the first time. The sitting concluded with various procedural items and the adjournment of the House.
The House of Commons completed the Second Reading of Bill C-2, concerning mega-trials, on June 16, 2011, and referred it to committee.
On June 16, 2011, the House of Commons completed the Second Reading stage for Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mega-trials. This stage involved major speeches and was agreed to, leading to the bill's referral to committee for consideration.
During a Senate sitting on June 22, 2011, various procedural matters were addressed, including the introduction and second reading of Bill C-2 concerning mega-trials in the Criminal Code, alongside other legislative and committee business.
This document is a record of a sitting of the Senate on June 22, 2011. It includes various proceedings such as Senators' Statements on topics like the Korean War, Canadian Forces, and other social issues. It also details Routine Proceedings where reports were tabled and notices of motions were given. Question Period covered topics like highways, youth employment, tax rates, deficit reduction, and foreign affairs. The main business of the day included the adoption of a motion to extend the sitting, the second reading and referral to committee of Bill C-3 (Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act), and the continuation of debate on the Speech from the Throne. Crucially, Bill C-2, concerning amendments to the Criminal Code (mega-trials), was received from the House of Commons, read for the first time, and then read a second time and referred to committee. The sitting also included proceedings related to other bills and committee business.
This House of Commons debate records the discussion and eventual referral of Bill C-2, aimed at improving the efficiency and fairness of complex criminal trials, to a committee for further review.
This artifact is a record of a debate in the House of Commons on June 16, 2011, concerning Bill C-2, the "Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act" (also referred to as the "mega-trials" bill). The debate focused on the proposed changes to the Criminal Code aimed at improving the management and efficiency of long and complex criminal trials, often called "mega-trials." Proponents argued that these changes are necessary due to the increasing complexity of cases, influenced by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, evolving evidence law, and new legislation. Concerns were raised about the potential for such trials to collapse due to delays and the need for timely justice. The bill proposed measures like appointing a case management judge, streamlining direct indictments, increasing the number of jurors, and enhancing juror protection. There was also discussion about whether the bill adequately addressed the root causes of delays, such as the appointment of judges, and its potential impact on provincial justice systems. The debate also touched upon the role of the NDP in advocating for these reforms and the government's response. Ultimately, the bill was read a second time and referred to a committee.
During a House of Commons debate on Bill C-2, Members discussed procedural changes aimed at making long and complex criminal trials, or 'mega-trials,' more efficient and fair.
This artifact is a record of debate from the House of Commons on June 16, 2011, concerning Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The debate focused on improving the efficiency of lengthy and complex criminal trials, often referred to as 'mega-trials'. Several members from different parties discussed the challenges posed by modern mega-trials, including delays, complexity arising from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, evolving evidence law, and increased statutory provisions. The bill proposed measures such as appointing a case management judge, reducing duplication of legal processes, increasing the number of jurors, and enhancing juror protection. The debate also touched upon related issues like the Air India Commission's recommendations and the need for judicial resources. Ultimately, the bill was read a second time and referred to a committee for further study.
During a House of Commons debate on Bill C-2 (mega-trials), members discussed procedural improvements for complex criminal trials, ultimately passing the bill to committee, while a labour dispute at Air Canada was also resolved.
This artifact is a record of a debate in the House of Commons on June 16, 2011, concerning Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The debate focused on procedural aspects and the necessity of the bill to expedite long and complex criminal trials, often referred to as "mega-trials". Various members from different parties, including the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and the NDP critic for justice, discussed the bill's provisions for case management judges, streamlining direct indictments, protecting juror identity, and increasing the number of jurors. There was also a brief discussion about the potential impact on provincial jurisdiction regarding judge appointments. The debate concluded with the bill being read a second time and referred to a committee. Separately, there was also a discussion about a labour dispute at Air Canada, which was resolved shortly before the debate concluded.
In the House of Commons on June 16, 2011, members debated Bill C-2, aiming to expedite complex "mega-trials" through procedural reforms, before the bill was read a second time and sent to committee.
During a House of Commons debate on June 16, 2011, members discussed Bill C-2, the "Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act," which aimed to speed up lengthy "mega-trials." The debate focused on procedural changes to improve case management, reduce duplication, and enhance criminal procedure. Concerns were raised about potential impacts on judicial resources and the balance between efficiency and fairness for accused individuals. The bill was eventually read a second time and referred to a committee.
On June 22, 2011, the Senate received and began debating Bill C-2, aimed at streamlining complex criminal trials, alongside other Senate business including reports and discussions on various societal issues.
This document details proceedings in the Senate on June 22, 2011. It includes various Senate business such as tabling reports, notices of motions, and discussions on topics ranging from the Korean War and Canadian Forces to social issues like traumatic brain injury awareness and sickle cell disease. Notably, the Senate received Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), from the House of Commons and proceeded to its first reading and then second reading, referring it to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The debate on Bill C-2 focused on its aim to improve the efficiency of large and complex criminal trials (mega-trials) by introducing measures like case management judges and clarifying rules around mistrials and juror selection.
Bill C-2, concerning mega-trials, completed its committee consideration in the House of Commons on June 22, 2011, before moving through report and third reading stages and ultimately receiving Royal Assent.
This artifact documents the 'Consideration in committee' stage for Bill C-2 in the House of Commons, which occurred on June 21 and June 22, 2011. Following this stage, the bill moved to Report stage and then Third reading on June 22, 2011. The bill eventually received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011, becoming chapter 16 of the Statutes of Canada, 2011.
The House of Commons considered and passed Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), after the Justice and Human Rights Committee reported it without amendments.
On June 22, 2011, in the House of Commons, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented its first report concerning Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). The committee reported the bill back to the House without any amendments. Following this, the House, pursuant to a previous order, deemed the bill concurred in at the report stage, deemed it read a third time, and passed it.
The House of Commons completed the Report stage for Bill C-2 on June 22, 2011, leading to Royal Assent on June 26, 2011.
This artifact details the House of Commons Report stage for Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). This stage was completed on June 22, 2011. The bill subsequently received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011, becoming Statutes of Canada 2011, chapter 16.
During a House of Commons sitting on June 22, 2011, Bill C-2, concerning mega-trials, was deemed concurred in at report stage and passed, completing its consideration in the House.
On June 22, 2011, the House of Commons met for a sitting that included various statements by members on diverse topics, oral questions, routine proceedings, and government orders. A key procedural event was the report stage of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). Following a report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that the bill was studied and reported back without amendment, the House agreed, by a procedural order made on June 16, to deem the bill concurred in at report stage, and then deemed it read a third time and passed. This completed the House of Commons' consideration of the bill at this stage.
Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning mega-trials, completed its Third Reading in the House of Commons on June 22, 2011, and later received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011.
This artifact describes the completion of the Third Reading stage for Bill C-2 in the House of Commons on June 22, 2011. The bill subsequently received Royal Assent on June 26, 2011, becoming an Act of Parliament. The artifact also outlines the bill's progression through other stages in both the House of Commons and the Senate, including First Reading, Second Reading, and Committee consideration, as well as a pre-study in the Senate. Speeches from key Members of Parliament and Senators involved in the bill's progression are noted.
The House of Commons completed the third reading and passing of Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials), on June 22, 2011.
On June 22, 2011, the House of Commons considered Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials). Following discussions and votes, the bill was deemed concurred in at the report stage, read a third time, and passed. This record details procedural actions and does not contain the full text of the bill or its amendments.
We don't have a plain-language summary for Debates of the Senate yet. The official source linked below is the full record.
Debate and sitting links point to official parliamentary sources when LEGISinfo publishes them. Any plain-language discussion summaries should be generated from those official texts and reviewed before public display.
Vote Summary
This bill does not have a published recorded division in the current official sources, so representative-by-representative vote counts are not shown.
No published representative vote breakdown
The current official sources do not publish a recorded division breakdown for this bill, so there is no representative-by-representative table to show.
Official sources
Status, sponsor, votes, and timeline on this page are drawn from these official legislative sources and public records. Each summary above is attributed to its own source.
How this data is sourced