Bill C-25 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Truth in Sentencing Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 27, 2009
- Debated in principleApril 20, 2009
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 8, 2009
- Passed the second chamberOct. 20, 2009
- Became lawOct. 22, 2009
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
- John D. WallaceSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Larry BagnellPushed the government to bring forward the legislation and is delighted it was introduced.
- Keith Martinexplicitly states the Liberal Party is supporting the bill as important legislation
- Réal MénardExplicitly states the Bloc Québécois supports the bill and has called for it since 2007.
- Marc Lemaystates the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of Bill C-25
- Rob NicholsonIntroduces the bill as very important legislation that is part of the government's agenda.
- Ed Fastdefends the bill and criticizes opposition to it as protecting Canadians
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.
What it set out to do
On 27 March 2009, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody) (Truth in Sentencing Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Courts typically take into account certain factors in determining the amount of credit for pre-sentencing custody, such as overcrowding or a lack of programming for inmates. This has resulted in courts traditionally awarding credit at 2 to 1 for pre-sentencing custody. On rare occasions, the credit awarded has been as high as 3 to 1. Bill C-25 amends the Criminal Code to provide the courts with sentencing guidance and limits for granting “credit for time served.” Among other things, the bill would: • make it the general rule that the amount of credit for time served be capped at a 1-to-1 ratio, (i.e. one day of credit for each day an individual has spent in custody prior to sentencing); • permit a credit to be given at a ratio of up to 1.5 to 1 only where the circumstances justify it; • require courts to explain the circumstances that justified a higher ratio; and, • limit the pre-sentencing credit ratio to a maximum ratio of 1 to 1 for individua…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsSenator WattExempts aboriginal offenders from the credit limits in clause 3 so that judges retain full discretion for them.Voted down · Oct. 21, 2009 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
55% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (996 words introduced, 923 passed). A committee amended it.
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with its core rules on 1:1 credit and limited 1.5:1 exceptions unchanged. Only minor formatting, column order in the warrant form, and assent details were adjusted.
- Telephone numbers lost parentheses in the final statute.
Before: “(613) 941-5995 or 1-800-635-7943”
After: “613-941-5995 or 1-800-635-7943”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets clear numerical caps on custody credit and mandates exact record entries on warrants. It leaves open when extra credit is allowed and what counts as adequate reasons.
Open to argument
“The court shall give reasons for any credit granted”
No standard defines how detailed or specific the reasons must be.
Clear-cut
“the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody”
Hard numerical ceiling removes discretion on the ordinary rate.“the amount of time spent in custody, the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed before any credit was granted, the amount of time credited, if any, and the sentence imposed”
Lists exactly what must appear on the warrant, leaving no choice on content.“Subsections 719(3) to (3.4) of the Act, as enacted by section 3, apply only to persons charged after the day on which those subsections come into force”
Bright-line temporal rule fixes the cohort covered.
Discretion. Courts decide whether circumstances justify 1.5-day credit and how much detail reasons require; the Governor in Council alone sets the coming-into-force date.
Challenging the law itself. Vagueness and overbreadth claims under Charter s. 7 could target the undefined 'circumstances justify it' phrase, though the numerical caps themselves are clear.
Disputing a charge under it. Once a sentence is imposed, the statutory caps and mandatory record entries make it straightforward to verify compliance or non-compliance.
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?
no evaluation found
No official statutory or parliamentary reviews, PBO/Auditor General reports, departmental evaluations, or peer-reviewed studies assess whether the Truth in Sentencing Act achieved its goal of limiting pre-sentencing custody credit. Available sources focus on fiscal costs or judicial interpretation rather than outcomes on credit ratios.
- Parliamentary Budget Officer Report: The Funding Requirement and Impact of the “Truth in Sentencing Act” on the Correctional System in CanadaauditEstimated the Act would require about $1 billion annually in additional federal correctional costs, primarily for new facilities and operations.
- R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26courtClarified that lost eligibility for early release/parole can justify enhanced 1.5:1 credit under the Act's 'circumstances justify it' provision.
- Bill C-25 The Truth in Sentencing Act: An Examination of the Implementation... (University of Ottawa thesis)studyAnalysis of cases suggested judges resisted full implementation of the Act's credit limits to protect principles of justice.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.