Bill S-208 explained in plain English
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary)
Federal Parliament bill summary, status, timeline, sponsor, votes, and official sources.
At a glance
Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 43rd 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 S-208 amends the Criminal Code to increase judicial discretion in sentencing by allowing courts to depart from minimum punishments and mandatory prohibition orders when they consider it just and reasonable.
Bill S-208 makes changes to how Canadian courts can impose sentences. Currently, many criminal offences in Canada have mandatory minimum sentences that judges must apply. This bill gives judges more flexibility by allowing them to depart from these minimums when they believe it is just and reasonable in the circumstances. The bill makes four main changes: 1. **Punishment discretion**: It changes how courts apply sentences when an enactment (a law) prescribes different degrees of punishment or a specific punishment. The bill states that despite any limitations in the law, the punishment is in the court's discretion. This applies even to punishments declared as minimums. 2. **Prohibition orders**: When a law requires a court to make a prohibition order (an order restricting someone's activities), the court can now decide not to make the order, add conditions to it, or change the conditions—including the length of the prohibition—if the court thinks this is just and reasonable. The court must record its reasons for doing so. 3. **Minimum imprisonment and parole ineligibility**: Before imposing a minimum sentence of imprisonment or minimum period before someone is eligible for parole, courts must consider all available options other than that minimum and decide there is no alternative that is just and reasonable. Courts must provide written reasons for imposing such minimums. 4. **Treatment programs and sentencing delays**: Courts can now delay sentencing to allow someone who pleaded guilty to attend a treatment or counselling program without requiring the Attorney General's consent (previously required). The court only needs the consent of the person found guilty and must consider the interests of justice and any victim. 5. **Jury recommendations in murder cases**: For both first and second degree murder, juries can now make recommendations about how many years must be served before someone is eligible for parole, and judges must consider these recommendations. The bill's preamble notes that this change is intended to prevent disproportionate sentences and to address concerns about systemic over-incarceration of certain groups, including Indigenous peoples and women.
- Amends section 718.3 of the Criminal Code to state that punishment is in the discretion of the court despite limitations prescribed in the enactment, including for punishments declared to be minimums
- Adds new section 718.4 to allow courts to decline to make a mandatory prohibition order, or to add conditions or vary conditions including the period of prohibition, if the court considers it just and reasonable, with reasons to be recorded
- Adds new section 718.5 to require courts to consider all available options other than minimum imprisonment or parole ineligibility before imposing such minimums, and to provide written reasons for imposing them
- Amends section 720(2) to remove the requirement for Attorney General consent to delay sentencing for treatment or counselling programs; only the consent of the person found guilty and consideration of justice and victim interests are required
- Amends section 745.2 to extend jury recommendations about parole eligibility periods to both first degree and second degree murder cases (previously only second degree)
- Judges and courts imposing sentences under the Criminal Code
- People convicted of offences where the Criminal Code prescribes minimum sentences or mandatory prohibition orders
- People convicted of first degree or second degree murder who may benefit from jury input on parole eligibility
- Victims of offences (whose interests must be considered when courts delay sentencing for treatment programs)
- The Attorney General (whose consent is no longer required for certain sentencing delays)
- Treatment and counselling program providers
- Juries in first and second degree murder trials
- Courts have the discretion to depart from minimum punishments prescribed by law when sentencing
- Courts must consider it 'just and reasonable' before declining or modifying mandatory prohibition orders
- Courts must provide reasons for deciding not to make or modifying a mandatory prohibition order
- Courts must consider all available alternatives before imposing minimum imprisonment or minimum parole ineligibility periods
- Courts must provide written reasons when imposing minimum imprisonment or parole ineligibility
- Courts may delay sentencing for treatment programs with consent of the convicted person without Attorney General approval
- Judges must consider jury recommendations regarding parole eligibility in both first and second degree murder cases
- Juries in murder cases may make non-binding recommendations about parole eligibility years
- Bill is currently at second reading in the Senate (status as of the provided information)
- Bill text does not specify financial or budgetary impacts
- No new penalties are created by this bill; rather, it modifies how existing penalties are applied by courts
- Failure to provide reasons for declining or modifying a prohibition order could affect the validity or enforceability of the court's decision
- The bill does not define what 'just and reasonable' means; courts will develop the meaning through case law
- The bill does not specify what 'available options' courts must consider under section 718.5(1)(a) beyond the minimum sentence itself
- The bill does not detail how courts should treat jury recommendations in murder cases—only that they 'shall consider' them
- It is unclear how the amended discretion in section 718.3 interacts with any other Criminal Code provisions that might prescribe mandatory elements
- The bill text does not specify a commencement date
- The bill does not explain what happens if a court finds no alternatives exist under section 718.5(1)(b)
Changes the language from 'subject to the limitations prescribed in the enactment' to 'despite the limitations prescribed in the enactment' for both degrees of punishment and minimum punishments, giving courts explicit discretion to depart from prescribed minimums
Source: Clause 1, Subsections 718.3(1) and (2)
Creates new authority allowing courts to decline mandatory prohibition orders or modify them if just and reasonable, with mandatory written reasons
Source: Clause 2, Section 718.4
Creates new requirement that courts must consider alternatives to minimum sentences before imposing them and provide written reasons
Source: Clause 2, Section 718.5
Removes Attorney General consent requirement for delaying sentencing for treatment programs; court can now proceed with consent of the person found guilty and by considering interests of justice and victims. Also removes the requirement that programs be 'approved by the province'
Source: Clause 3, Subsection 720(2)
Extends jury recommendation process to first degree murder cases in addition to second degree murder; jury recommendations must be considered in determining parole eligibility periods
Source: Clause 4, Section 745.2
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
Bill S-208, concerning the independence of the judiciary, completed its first reading in the Senate on February 4, 2020, and proceeded to second reading where debates occurred on multiple dates.
This record shows the procedural steps for Bill S-208 in the Senate. The bill received its first reading on February 4, 2020. It then proceeded to second reading on February 6, 2020, with debates and major speeches occurring on several dates in February, March, and June 2020. The bill is currently at the second reading stage in the Senate. The artifact also lists similar bills that were introduced in previous parliamentary sessions.
The Senate introduced new senators, held tributes for victims of the Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 tragedy, and formally began the legislative process for Bill S-208 by giving it first reading.
On February 4, 2020, the Senate met. The proceedings included the introduction of two new senators, tributes to victims of the Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 tragedy, and the tabling of several reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Notably, Bill S-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code regarding the independence of the judiciary, was introduced and received its first reading. The Senate also debated and adopted a motion concerning the Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 tragedy, demanding a full investigation, cooperation from Iran, and fair compensation to families. Other business included notices of motions and inquiries on various topics, and ongoing debates from previous sittings.
Bill S-208, concerning the independence of the judiciary, was at the second reading stage in the Senate as of June 25, 2020, with debate and speeches having occurred but the stage not yet completed.
This record shows the status of Bill S-208, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), as it moved through the Senate. The bill had its first reading on February 4, 2020, and its second reading began on February 6, 2020. There were major speeches related to the second reading on several dates, including February 18, 19, 25, and March 10, 2020, and a subsequent debate on June 25, 2020. As of June 25, 2020, the second reading stage was not completed.
During a Senate sitting on February 6, 2020, after routine proceedings, question period, and various other debates and motions, the second reading debate on Bill S-208, concerning judicial independence, was adjourned.
On February 6, 2020, the Senate sat. The sitting included tributes to former Senator Nicole Eaton, discussions on various topics including Black History Month, Food Freedom Day, Guaranteed Livable Income, and the late Marylène Levesque. Routine proceedings included the tabling of a report and notices of motions. Question Period addressed topics such as the carbon tax for farmers, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, interprovincial trade, census questions for minority language communities, the North Warning System, Canada's stance on Taiwan's participation in the ICAO, and the federal fiscal deficit. The Senate then proceeded to Orders of the Day, which included debate on the Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators report, a motion to invite ministers to Question Period, and adjournment. Crucially, debate on Bill S-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), was adjourned. Other bills discussed included Bill S-207 concerning juror disclosure and Bill S-210 regarding a Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate. The Senate also debated a motion to study the correctional system and the Parole Board, and inquiries on deficiencies in Senate policies, carbon emissions, and Arctic issues were also initiated or continued.
On February 6, 2020, the Senate held debates and discussions on various matters including tributes, routine proceedings, question period, and adjourned the debate on Bill S-208 concerning judicial independence.
This document details proceedings in the Senate on February 6, 2020. While the debate on Bill S-208 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code - independence of the judiciary) is mentioned as 'Adjourned', this artifact primarily captures other Senate business. This includes tributes to former Senator Nicole Eaton, discussions on Black History Month, Food Freedom Day, Guaranteed Livable Income, and the late Marylène Levesque. It also records routine proceedings such as tabling reports and introducing bills, Question Period covering topics like the carbon tax, foreign policy, and the economy, and debates on other committee reports and motions. The document indicates that the debate on Bill S-208 was adjourned and thus not completed on this date.
During a Senate sitting on February 18, 2020, proceedings included statements, tabling of reports, introduction of bills, question period on various topics, and ongoing debates on committee reports and legislative matters, including Bill S-208 concerning judicial independence.
The Senate met on February 18, 2020. The sitting included senators' statements on the passing of Jeannette Runciman and Black History Month. Routine proceedings involved tabling reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General, and the Senate Ethics Officer. Bills were introduced for first reading: an Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and an Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Several reports from parliamentary associations were tabled. Notices of motions were given regarding National Human Trafficking Awareness Day and a study on the situation in Hong Kong. Question Period addressed the Ukraine International Airlines PS752 tragedy, blockade protests, dementia care, non-resident vote manipulation, compensation for supply-managed food producers, carbon tax exemptions for agricultural producers, and Canada-China relations. The Orders of the Day included continued debates on committee reports and adjourned debates on various bills, including one to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), the Modern Slavery Bill, and others. There was also a debate on a motion to authorize a committee study on the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and a point of order regarding the proposed amendments to Senate rules. An inquiry regarding the Senate Ethics Officer's report on former Senator Don Meredith was also initiated.
During a Senate sitting on February 19, 2020, senators continued the second reading debate on Bill S-208, which proposes to amend the Criminal Code to provide judges with sentencing discretion for offenses with mandatory minimum penalties.
On February 19, 2020, the Senate convened for a sitting that included Senators' Statements, Routine Proceedings, Question Period, and Orders of the Day. The debate on Bill S-208, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), was continued. Senators made statements on various topics including Black History Month, the coronavirus outbreak, and the Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project. During Question Period, senators raised issues such as rail service disruptions, the carbon tax, blockade protests, the prison system, and the use of child refugees by the Syrian military. The Senate also continued debate on other matters, including the ethics and conflict of interest for senators, the Speech from the Throne, and a motion related to the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement (Bill C-4). The debate on Bill S-208 specifically focused on amending the Criminal Code to give courts discretion in sentencing for offenses with mandatory minimum penalties.
During a Senate sitting on February 25, 2020, senators discussed various issues, debated ongoing bills including Bill S-208 concerning judicial independence, and addressed routine parliamentary proceedings.
This document is a record of a Senate sitting on February 25, 2020. The sitting included statements from senators on various topics, routine proceedings such as tabling reports and giving notice of motions, and question period where senators asked questions of the Government Representative in the Senate on issues including pipelines, First Nations governance, blockade protests, foreign influence in elections, and the coronavirus. The Senate also debated and voted on several items, including reports from the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Committee, motions related to ministerial participation in Question Period, and committee business. Notably, the Senate continued debate on several bills: Bill S-207 to amend the Criminal Code regarding juror disclosure, Bill S-208 to amend the Criminal Code concerning judicial independence, Bill S-209 to amend the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act, Bill S-211 concerning modern slavery, and an inquiry on carbon emissions. The debate on Bill S-208, concerning the independence of the judiciary, is continued in this record.
During this Senate sitting, tributes were paid, reports were tabled, and debates continued on multiple bills and inquiries, including Bill S-208 on judicial independence and Bill S-211 on modern slavery.
This Senate sitting on March 10, 2020, included tributes to former Senator David P. Smith, statements on International Women's Day, and the tabling of various government reports and documents. The Senate also addressed several notices of motion, engaged in Question Period on topics ranging from the economy to judicial appointments, and continued debates on various bills and inquiries, including Bill S-208 concerning judicial independence and Bill S-211 on modern slavery. The sitting also featured discussions on rule changes within the Senate, the future of workers, climate change, and the Bank of Canada Act.
The Senate convened for a sitting that included tributes, statements on various social and political issues, question period, and extensive deliberations in a Committee of the Whole on systemic racism, featuring ministerial testimony and debate on related policies and legislation, notably including Bill S-208 at second reading.
The Senate met and started proceedings with tributes to departing pages. The sitting included statements on various topics, including the experiences of employees of a former Senator, the commemoration of the Korean War, the role of women, working groups, and COVID-19 and racism. Question Period covered Veterans Affairs, Agriculture and Agri-Food, Foreign Affairs, Health, National Capital Commission, Finance, and Veterans Affairs again. The Orders of the Day included debate continuation on several committee reports and bills, including Bill S-208 concerning amendments to the Criminal Code regarding judicial independence. A significant portion of the sitting involved a Committee of the Whole discussion on the government's role in combatting racism, with Ministers of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and Families, Children and Social Development providing testimony and responding to questions. The committee examined systemic racism, police conduct, data collection, and legislative approaches to address these issues. The sitting concluded with the report of the Committee of the Whole, continuation of debate on other committee reports and bills, and adjournment of inquiries.
On June 25, 2020, the Senate continued debate on Bills S-208 and S-214, heard statements on various issues, and held a Committee of the Whole discussion on systemic racism with government ministers.
This document is a record of the Senate's proceedings on June 25, 2020. It includes tributes to departing pages, statements on various topics including the experiences of employees of a former senator, the commemoration of the Korean War, environmental issues, the role of women, and COVID-19. It also includes Question Period covering topics like Veterans Affairs, Canada-China relations, and mental health. The "Orders of the Day" section shows that Bill S-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary), and Bill S-214, an Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, were part of the day's business and their second reading debates were continued. The Senate also went into a Committee of the Whole to discuss the government's role in combatting racism, with ministers present to answer questions.
Bill S-208, concerning the independence of the judiciary, is currently awaiting its third reading in the Senate, with its most recent procedural activity being debate at second reading.
This artifact describes the procedural status of Bill S-208 in the Senate. The bill is currently at the 'Senate Third reading' stage, but this stage has not yet been reached. The latest activity recorded was debate at second reading on June 25, 2020. The bill was first read on February 4, 2020, and had its second reading on February 6, 2020. Major speeches related to the second reading occurred on several dates in February, March, and June 2020.
Bill S-208, concerning judicial independence, has reached First Reading in the House of Commons, a stage that has not yet occurred, while the bill is currently at Second Reading in the Senate.
This record shows that Bill S-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning the independence of the judiciary, has reached its First Reading stage in the House of Commons. This stage is procedural and has not yet occurred. The bill has since moved on to Second Reading in the Senate, where debates took place.
This artifact outlines the procedural status of Bill S-208, indicating its second reading stage in the House of Commons has not yet occurred, while detailing its history in the Senate.
This artifact describes the procedural steps for Bill S-208 in the House of Commons. The bill is currently at the "House of Commons Second reading" stage, but this stage has not yet been reached. The record also lists past activities, including its first reading on February 4, 2020, and second reading on February 6, 2020. It also notes major speeches that took place related to the bill's second reading in the Senate on various dates in 2020. The artifact also mentions similar bills that were introduced in previous parliamentary sessions. The bill's current overall status is "At second reading in the Senate."
The specified stage 'House of Commons Consideration in committee' for Bill S-208 has not yet been reached, as the bill is currently at second reading in the Senate.
This artifact indicates that Bill S-208 has not yet reached the stage of 'Consideration in committee' in the House of Commons. The bill's current overall status is 'At second reading in the Senate', meaning it is still being reviewed at that stage in the Senate. The provided text details the bill's progression up to this point, including first and second reading dates in the Senate and listing major speeches given during the second reading debate.
Bill S-208 has not yet reached the Report stage in the House of Commons, and its current status is at second reading in the Senate.
This artifact describes the legislative process for Bill S-208 in the House of Commons. Specifically, it indicates that the bill has not yet reached the Report stage in the House of Commons. The current status of the bill is at second reading in the Senate. The artifact also lists previous legislative actions and related bills.
Bill S-208 has not yet reached its third reading in the House of Commons, and is currently undergoing second reading in the Senate.
This record indicates that Bill S-208 has not yet reached the third reading stage in the House of Commons. The bill is currently at the second reading stage in the Senate. The provided text details the history of the bill's progression, including its first and second readings in the Senate and lists major speeches given during the second reading debate. It also notes similar bills that were introduced in previous parliamentary sessions. The artifact itself is a procedural placeholder for a stage (House of Commons Third Reading) that has not yet occurred.
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 is still active. We only show vote counts after the legislature publishes a recorded division.
No published representative vote breakdown
This bill is still moving through the process. When a recorded division is published, representative positions can be listed here.
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