Skip to main content
Back to Bills
FederalDid not become law (session ended)43rd Parliament, 2nd Session

Bill S-207 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

Jurisdiction
Federal Parliament
Legislature / Parliament
Parliament of Canada
Session
43rd Parliament, 2nd Session
Bill number
Bill S-207
Full title
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (independence of the judiciary)
Current status
Did not become law (session ended)
Latest event
At consideration in committee in the Senate
Last updated
May 25, 2021
Sponsor

Official Parliament of Canada snapshot for 43rd Parliament, 2nd 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.

Chamber
Parliament of Canada
Current Stage
At consideration in committee in the Senate
Latest Activity
May 25, 2021
Sponsor
Plain-language explanation
In plain English (our explanation)

Our plain-language take, written for civic education.

Source: By PoliticalData.ca

AI-assisted, reviewed before publishing
Short Version

Bill S-207 amends the Criminal Code to give courts greater discretion in sentencing, including the ability to depart from minimum sentences, vary or decline mandatory prohibition orders, and consider jury recommendations in murder cases.

What It Means

Bill S-207 changes the Criminal Code to increase judicial discretion in sentencing decisions. The bill allows courts to depart from mandatory minimum sentences if they consider it necessary for a just and reasonable outcome. It gives courts the power to decline mandatory prohibition orders or modify their conditions. It requires courts to consider all alternatives before imposing minimum prison sentences or parole ineligibility periods and to provide written reasons for their decisions. It removes the requirement for the Attorney General to consent to delay sentencing for treatment or counselling programs. For murder convictions, the bill expands the jury's role by allowing them to make recommendations about parole eligibility in both first-degree and second-degree murder cases, and requires judges to consider these recommendations.

What This Bill Does
  • Amends section 718.3 of the Criminal Code to clarify that courts have discretion to impose sentences despite limitations prescribed in law, including discretion to depart from minimum sentences.
  • Adds new section 718.4 to allow courts to decline to make a mandatory prohibition order, or to add conditions to or vary the conditions of a prohibition order, if the court considers it just and reasonable, and requires the court to state reasons for such decisions.
  • Adds new section 718.5 to require courts to consider all available alternatives before imposing a minimum sentence of imprisonment or minimum period of parole ineligibility, and to determine that no just and reasonable alternative exists, and to provide written reasons for imposing such sentences.
  • Amends section 720(2) to remove the requirement for Attorney General consent to delay sentencing for treatment or counselling programs and to allow courts to select programs they consider appropriate rather than only province-approved programs.
  • Amends section 745.2 to expand jury recommendations on parole eligibility to include both first-degree and second-degree murder convictions, and requires judges to consider jury recommendations when determining parole eligibility periods.
Who Is Affected
  • Judges and courts, who gain greater discretion in sentencing decisions and must follow new procedural requirements when departing from mandatory minimums
  • Persons convicted of criminal offences, who may receive more individualized sentences reflecting their circumstances
  • Persons subject to prohibition orders, who may have the orders declined or modified
  • Juries in first-degree and second-degree murder trials, who now have an explicit role in recommending parole eligibility periods
  • The Attorney General, whose consent is no longer required for sentencing delays for treatment programs
  • Treatment and counselling programs, which courts can now select without provincial approval requirements
  • Crime victims, whose interests must continue to be considered in sentencing and program decisions
Rights, Duties, Or Obligations
  • Courts must have discretion to depart from mandatory minimum sentences when they consider it just and reasonable
  • Courts may decline or modify mandatory prohibition orders if just and reasonable, and must state reasons for doing so
  • Courts must consider all available alternatives before imposing minimum prison sentences or parole ineligibility periods
  • Courts must provide written reasons when imposing minimum sentences or parole ineligibility periods
  • Courts may delay sentencing for treatment or counselling programs based on consent of the convicted person only, without Attorney General approval
  • Judges must consider jury recommendations regarding parole eligibility in murder cases
  • Juries have the right to make recommendations about parole eligibility in both first-degree and second-degree murder cases
Important Dates
  • The bill does not specify a commencement date; the text indicates it would apply upon receiving Royal Assent
Financial Or Tax Impacts
  • No specific financial or tax impacts are detailed in the bill text
Enforcement Or Penalties
  • The bill does not establish new penalties or enforcement mechanisms; it creates procedural requirements and discretionary powers for courts
Uncertainties Or Limits
  • The bill does not define what 'just and reasonable' means in the context of declining or modifying prohibition orders or minimum sentences; this will be subject to judicial interpretation
  • The bill does not specify what constitutes 'all available options' that courts must consider before imposing minimum sentences
  • The bill does not explain how courts should balance jury recommendations with other sentencing principles in murder cases
  • The bill does not specify the timing or format of written reasons required for minimum sentences
  • The bill's interaction with section 745.3 (which addresses parole ineligibility for multiple murders) is not clarified
  • The practical effect of removing Attorney General consent from section 720(2) delays is unclear, as the bill text does not address existing case law or practice
Laws Or Regulations Affected
Criminal Code, section 718.3
amended

Courts now have explicit discretion to depart from any prescribed limitations on punishment, including mandatory minimum sentences, in order to impose just and reasonable sentences.

Source: Section 1 of Bill S-207

Criminal Code, section 718.4 (new)
created

Courts gain the authority to decline mandatory prohibition orders or modify their conditions and periods if it is just and reasonable to do so, and must provide written reasons for such decisions.

Source: Section 2 of Bill S-207

Criminal Code, section 718.5 (new)
created

Courts must consider alternative sentencing options before imposing minimum prison sentences or minimum parole ineligibility periods, must determine no just and reasonable alternative exists, and must provide written reasons.

Source: Section 2 of Bill S-207

Criminal Code, section 720(2)
amended

The Attorney General's consent is no longer required to delay sentencing for treatment or counselling programs, and courts can now choose programs they consider appropriate without restriction to province-approved programs.

Source: Section 3 of Bill S-207

Criminal Code, section 745.2
amended

Juries in both first-degree and second-degree murder cases may now make recommendations on the number of years an accused must serve before parole eligibility, and judges must consider these recommendations.

Source: Section 4 of Bill S-207

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 text

Parliamentary Process

Step 1
First reading
Sep 30, 2020
Completed

Bill S-207, concerning the independence of the judiciary, completed its first reading in the Senate on September 30, 2020, and subsequently moved through second reading before being sent to a committee.

Introduction and first reading, Sep 30, 2020
End of stage activity, Sep 30, 2020
Chamber sittings
Introduction and first reading - Sep 30, 2020

On September 30, 2020, the Senate sat to pay tribute to individuals, introduce Bill S-207, consider numerous motions, and engage in Question Period on various national issues, including COVID-19 response and Indigenous affairs.

Step 2
Second reading
May 25, 2021
Completed

Bill S-207 completed its second reading in the Senate and was referred to a committee for further study.

Second reading, May 25, 2021
Referral to committee, May 25, 2021
End of stage activity, May 25, 2021
Chamber sittings
Debate at second reading - Oct 27, 2020

The Senate held a sitting that included the adjournment of debate on Bill S-207 at second reading, the adoption of a motion to authorize hybrid sittings, and various other procedural items and statements.

On October 27, 2020, the Senate debated and adjourned the second reading of Bill S-207 concerning judicial independence, adopted a motion to enable hybrid sittings, and introduced several other bills.

Debate at second reading - Nov 3, 2020

The Senate sitting on November 3, 2020, featured tributes, routine proceedings including committee reports and notices of motions, question period on various government actions, and continued debates on multiple bills at the second reading stage, including Bill S-207 concerning judicial independence.

On November 3, 2020, the Senate convened for a sitting that included tributes, procedural matters, committee business, question period, and ongoing debates on various bills and motions, including Bill S-207 concerning judicial independence.

Debate at second reading - Nov 5, 2020

On November 5, 2020, the Senate held statements, routine proceedings, question period, and debated several bills at second reading, including ones related to chemical weapons, judicial independence, voting age, and modern slavery, while also addressing motions on various national and international issues.

During the second reading debate of Bill S-207, Senator Paula Simons argued that mandatory minimum sentences negatively impact the justice system and undermine judicial independence, citing the case of Helen Naslund.

Debate at second reading - Nov 17, 2020

On November 17, 2020, the Senate debated Bill C-9 concerning emergency wage and rent subsidies, addressed various COVID-19 related economic and social issues, and heard debates on other bills and motions, including those concerning judicial independence and Indigenous fishing rights.

Debate at second reading - Nov 19, 2020

This Senate sitting record from November 19, 2020, details debates on various bills and motions, including Bill S-207 regarding judicial independence, and includes Question Period and Routine Proceedings.

During a Senate debate on Bill S-207, senators discussed the negative impacts of mandatory minimum sentencing, advocating for the restoration of judicial discretion to ensure fairer and more equitable sentencing, especially for marginalized groups.

Debate at second reading - Dec 8, 2020

On December 8, 2020, the Senate convened to discuss various bills and motions, including those related to judicial independence, voting age, modern slavery, and the future of work, and debated matters of foreign policy, ultimately adjourning after several procedural actions and votes.

Second reading - May 25, 2021

On May 25, 2021, the Senate debated and advanced several bills, including Bill S-207 concerning judicial independence, addressed various policy issues during Question Period and Senators' Statements, and referred multiple bills to committee.

Step 3
Consideration in committee
Date not listed
No activity

Bill S-207 is currently being considered by a Senate committee, having previously passed first and second readings and heard related speeches.

Step 4
Report stage
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207, concerning the independence of the judiciary, has been referred to a Senate committee and has not yet reached the report stage.

Step 5
Third reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207, aiming to amend the Criminal Code regarding judicial independence, has not yet reached the Senate Third reading stage and is currently under committee consideration.

Step 1
First reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207, concerning the independence of the judiciary, reached first reading in the House of Commons on September 30, 2020, but this step was not completed, and the bill is now under committee review in the Senate.

Step 2
Second reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207, concerning judicial independence, has passed second reading in the House of Commons and is currently being considered by a Senate committee.

Step 3
Consideration in committee
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207 has not yet reached the committee stage in the House of Commons, with its current status being in committee in the Senate.

Step 4
Report stage
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207, concerning the independence of the judiciary, has not yet reached the Report Stage in the House of Commons and is currently under consideration by a Senate committee.

Step 5
Third reading
Not reached yet
Not reached

Bill S-207, concerning the independence of the judiciary, has not yet reached the Third Reading stage in the House of Commons and is currently under consideration by a Senate committee.

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

No published recorded division

This bill is still active. We only show vote counts after the legislature publishes a recorded division.

Sponsor
Kim Pate
Senator | Independent Senators Group (ISG) | Ontario
Jurisdiction
Federal Parliament

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