Bill S-6 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 19, 2010
- Debated in principleMay 4, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 28, 2010
- Passed the second chamberFeb. 2, 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
- Claude CarignanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Brent Rathgeberdescribes bill as achieving goals in a balanced way after committee review
- Scott SimmsStates support for sending the bill to committee while noting process concerns.
- Bob DechertExplicitly rises in support of the bill to repeal the faint hope regime.
- Rob Nicholsonmoves third reading and passage while defending the bill against opposition
- Dean Del Mastrodefends bill and criticizes opposition for delaying justice measures
- James LunneyDefends the bill against opposition criticism and frames debate as competing ideologies without rejecting it.
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 20 April 2010, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and Another Act (Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act), in the Senate and it was given first reading. Under section 745.6 of the Criminal Code, known as the “faint hope” clause, offenders sentenced to life imprisonment can apply, at the 15-year mark in their sentence, for an earlier parole eligibility date. Bill S-6 amends section 745.6 such that offenders who commit murder on or after the day that this proposed legislation comes into force will no longer be eligible to apply for early parole. The faint hope regime would, however, still apply to those offenders who are currently serving or awaiting sentencing for murder, subject to certain stipulations contained within the bill.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That Bill S-6 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows: “1. This Act may be cited as the Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act.” · 2010-12-14 · Failed
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,825 words introduced, 1,921 passed).
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core aim of ending faint hope applications for murders committed after coming into force while preserving access for existing offenders under new rules. Passage added two new subsections on deadline extensions and mandatory victim-family notifications, plus minor refinements to transitional timing.
- Added duty to notify victim's relatives when no application is filed.
After: “(2.8) If a person convicted of murder does not make an application under subsection (1) within the maximum time period allowed by this section, the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada, or his or her designate, shall immediately notify in writing a parent, child, spouse or common-law partner of the victim that the convicted person did not make an application.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The bill sets many exact time periods, dates, and numerical thresholds for parole applications but mixes them with subjective tests such as substantial likelihood and ministerial opinion. This creates clear rules in some areas while leaving room for argument in screening and extension decisions.
Open to argument
“whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed”
The phrase substantial likelihood is a subjective standard that requires judicial interpretation rather than an objective checklist.“If, in the Minister's opinion, the documents supplied by the foreign entity show”
Reliance on the Minister’s opinion introduces personal discretion instead of fixed statutory criteria.“due to circumstances beyond their control”
This undefined phrase allows case-by-case debate over what qualifies for a time extension.
Clear-cut
“within 90 days after the day on which they have served 15 years of their sentence”
Uses fixed numbers and calendar triggers that can be verified without subjective judgment.“no earlier than five years after the date of the determination”
Specifies an exact minimum interval, leaving little interpretive dispute.“This Act comes into force on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council”
Delegates the start date to a single, identifiable order rather than vague conditions.
Discretion. Chief Justices may extend 90-day limits to 180 days and decide whether to set future application dates or bar them entirely; the Minister exercises opinion-based discretion in foreign-offender parole calculations; the Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada handles victim notifications.
Challenging the law itself. Sections using substantial likelihood and ministerial opinion could be attacked under Charter s. 7 for vagueness or overbreadth, though the many fixed timelines may limit the scope of any successful challenge.
Disputing a charge under it. The provisions regulate eligibility to apply for parole rather than imposing direct prohibitions on individuals, so disputes would centre on procedural compliance rather than 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?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.