Bill C-23A · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 17, 2010
- Debated in principleJune 17, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 17, 2010
- Passed the second chamberJune 27, 2010
- Became lawJune 29, 2010
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
- Pierre-Hugues BoisvenuSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
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 11 May 2010, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-23 amends the Criminal Records Act to substitute the term “record suspension” for the term “pardon” while also extending the ineligibility periods for applications for a record suspension. The bill also makes those convicted of sexual offences against minors ineligible for a record suspension, along with those who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences. The bill also enables the National Parole Board to consider additional factors when deciding whether to order a record suspension.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
The texts have not been compared yet.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets fixed waiting periods and lists specific offences but then lets the Board decide pardons using open-ended tests such as good conduct and whether a pardon would bring justice into disrepute. These subjective phrases plus wide regulatory power leave most outcomes open to argument.
Open to argument
“would provide a measurable benefit to the applicant, would sustain his or her rehabilitation in society as a law-abiding citizen and would not bring the administra”
Three separate value judgments that invite prolonged debate over meaning and application.“the Board may consider”
Non-exhaustive list of factors plus open discretion to add more by regulation.“The Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule 1 or 2 by adding or deleting a reference to an offence”
Broad power to change the law's scope without new legislation.
Clear-cut
“10 years, in the case of a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of section 752 of the Criminal Code”
Fixed number tied to an existing statutory definition.“three years, in the case of an offence, other than one referred to in paragraph (a), that is punishable on summary conviction”
Clear time period and objective classification by mode of prosecution.
Discretion. The National Parole Board decides most pardon applications using its own view of rehabilitation and repute, while the Governor in Council can rewrite the offence lists by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'bring the administration of justice into disrepute' and 'measurable benefit' are open to Charter vagueness and overbreadth arguments under sections 7 and 11.
Disputing a charge under it. An applicant denied a pardon can readily argue that the Board's subjective factors were misapplied, though the onus clause makes success harder.
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/parliamentary reviews, PBO/AG reports, departmental evaluations, or peer-reviewed studies were identified assessing whether the 2010 changes to the Criminal Records Act achieved their objectives of limiting record suspensions for serious crimes. Available PBC performance data and court rulings note reduced applications and some provisions struck down but do not evaluate overall effectiveness.
- P.H. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 393courtFederal Court declared certain transitional provisions of the 2010 and 2012 amendments unconstitutional under Charter sections 11(h) and 11(i), leading PBC to cease retrospective application of eligibility changes.
- Parole Board of Canada Record Suspension Program 2024-2025 Report to ParliamentevaluationPost-2010 changes contributed to modified processing with additional inquiries, but no assessment of whether objectives on limiting serious crime suspensions were met; notes ongoing eligibility criteria use pre-amendment rules for some applicants.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.