Bill C-48 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 5, 2010
- Debated in principleNov. 16, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 1, 2011
- Passed the second chamberMarch 8, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
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
- Daniel LangSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Marc LemayCalls the bill very important and notes it fills a long-standing gap in the Criminal Code.
- Jim Malowaystates party and personal support for the bill
- Daniel Petitendorses bill as protecting victims and balancing sentences
- Don DaviesDescribes the bill as important for giving judges discretion on consecutive sentences for multiple murderers.
- Serge Ménardagrees it is a good bill and will vote in favour
- Albina Guarniericommends bill for giving victims proportionality in sentencing
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 5 October 2010, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act (Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. The new legislation would allow judges to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on individuals convicted of more than one first- or second-degree murder. Under the current system, individuals convicted of multiple murders serve their parole ineligibility periods concurrently. Consecutive parole ineligibility periods for multiple murderers would not be mandatory under the proposed legislation. Discretion would be given to judges to consider the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and any jury recommendation(s) before deciding on whether to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods. Judges would, however, be required to state orally or in writing the basis for any decision not to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on multiple murderers. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the National Defence Act.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
52% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,463 words introduced, 1,182 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core mechanism allowing judges discretion to order consecutive parole ineligibility for multiple murders was retained. The requirement to give reasons was expanded from only decisions against consecutive periods to all decisions on the order.
- Judges must now give reasons whether they decide to impose consecutive parole ineligibility or not.
Before: “(2) If a judge decides not to make an order under subsection (1), the judge shall give, either orally or in writing, reasons for the decision.”
After: “(2) The judge shall give, either orally or in writing, reasons for the decision to make or not to make an order under subsection (1).”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets clear triggers based on prior murder convictions, exact procedural steps for jury questions, reasons, and appeals, plus a bright-line future-offence application date. Yet the core power to order consecutive parole periods rests on open-ended judicial weighing of character, offence nature, and surrounding circumstances.
Open to argument
“having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission”
This phrase supplies only subjective, multi-factor standards without objective thresholds or definitions.
Clear-cut
“Subsection (1) applies to an offender who is convicted of murders committed on a day after the day on which this section comes into force”
This fixes a precise temporal boundary using a specific commencement day.“The judge shall give, either orally or in writing, reasons for the decision to make or not to make an order under subsection (1)”
This imposes a mandatory, verifiable duty with no discretion on whether reasons are required.
Discretion. Almost all operative discretion is conferred on sentencing judges; the only regulatory power is the Governor in Council's order fixing the coming-into-force date.
Challenging the law itself. The broad 'having regard to' language could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or s. 12 for cruel and unusual punishment, though the core scheme is clearly tied to prior convictions.
Disputing a charge under it. Once the prior conviction and sentencing facts are proven, whether the judge properly exercised the discretionary power is reviewable on appeal but difficult to dispute as a factual breach.
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?
not effective
No statutory, parliamentary, PBO, Auditor General, or departmental evaluations of the Act's effectiveness were found. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down its core provision (s. 745.51 Cr.C.) as unconstitutional in R. v. Bissonnette (2022 SCC 23), rendering the law's mechanism for consecutive parole ineligibility periods of no force or effect.
- The Meaning of Life: A Study of the Use of Parole Ineligibility for Murder Sentencing (Grant, Choi & Parkes, 2020)studyPost-C-48, courts imposed consecutive parole ineligibility in just under 45% of eligible multiple-murder cases analyzed.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.