Bill C-13 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 29, 2007
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 29, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJan. 28, 2008
- Became lawMay 28, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Donald H. OliverSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brian MurphyStates the party was in favour of the bill and praises its modernizing effects on the justice system.
- Rob MoorePresents the Senate amendments neutrally and explains how the bill proceeds with them.
- Réal MénardStates outright support for the bill and a related Liberal amendment on language rights.
- Joan FraserSenate · SenatorMoved adoption of the committee report containing the amendments and later moved third reading of the bill as amended.
- Serge JoyalSenate · SenatorEmphasized the Senate's duty to protect minority language rights in Quebec and supported the committee amendments addressing those concerns.
- Roy CullenCalls the bill generally an improvement and enters debate positively.
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
That the motion be amended by deleting the words “agrees with amendments numbered 2 · 2008-04-16 · Failed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds safeguardsJoan FraserRestored requirement that the judge personally advise the accused of language rights under clause 18.Adopted · Dec. 12, 2007 · Senate record
- adds provisionsJoan FraserAdded requirement for annual ministerial report on minority-language trial orders and actual trials.Adopted · Dec. 12, 2007 · Senate record
- adds review or sunsetJoan FraserAdded three-year parliamentary review of the language-of-trial provisions.Adopted · Dec. 12, 2007 · Senate record
- technicalGerald J. ComeauCoordinated sentencing provisions with Bill C-2 for impaired-driving offences.Adopted · Dec. 12, 2007 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact dollar amounts, fixed time periods and clear dual-procedure options with repeated subjective phrases that turn on a court's opinion or an undefined lawful excuse. This produces quick answers on fines and minimum prohibitions but prolonged argument on what counts as compliance or forfeiture.
Open to argument
“during any period that the court considers proper”
Leaves duration entirely to judicial discretion without objective criteria.“if the court is of the opinion that such an order is necessary to preserve the impartiality of the jurors”
Subjective judicial opinion replaces a defined test.“after considering the interests of justice and of any victim of the offence”
Broad, value-laden standard invites case-by-case debate.“under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used”
Relies on inference rather than concrete facts, creating room for dispute.
Clear-cut
“liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars”
Fixed monetary ceiling removes uncertainty about maximum exposure.“for a first offence, 3 months after the day on which sentence is imposed”
Specific calendar periods tied to a clear starting event.“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction”
Explicit election between two defined procedural tracks.
Discretion. Courts and the Attorney General retain wide latitude over non-communication orders, forfeiture, jury-election overrides, and treatment-program delays, with only minimal regulatory constraints.
Challenging the law itself. Repeated reliance on 'opinion', 'interests of justice' and 'reasonable inference' could support a s. 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused can readily litigate the existence of a 'lawful excuse' or contest whether circumstances support the required inference.
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?
partly effective
The bill mandated a parliamentary review of its language-of-the-accused amendments (Part XVII of the Criminal Code), which a 2014 House of Commons committee completed and found the provisions generally administered without major difficulty by provinces and territories, though with room for improvement and a call for follow-up review. Court rulings, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have recognized the 2008 changes as strengthening accused persons' rights, but no comprehensive evaluations, audits, or studies assess the bill's full impact on criminal procedure or sentencing.
- R. v. Tayo Tompouba, 2024 SCC 16courtThe 2008 amendment extending judges' duty to advise all accused (not just self-represented) of language rights under s. 530(3) is an important legislative recognition of caution and the judge's role as guardian of language rights.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.