Bill C-2 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mega-trials)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 13, 2011
- Debated in principleJune 16, 2011
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 22, 2011
- Passed the second chamberJune 22, 2011
- Became lawJune 25, 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
- Senator RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Kerry-Lynne Findlaycalls bill important to improve criminal procedure and cut megatrials
- Pat Martinexplicitly notes need for this bill to address megatrials
- Joe Comartinstates legislation long time coming due to pressure in system
- Peter Julianpraises the bill as an NDP-originated solution now accepted by the government.
- Robert Goguencalls bill practical solution balancing efficiency and rights
- Gary Goodyearframes bill as part of strong crime agenda to help communities
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
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (5,022 words introduced, 3,860 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core provisions on case management judges for mega-trials but was amended to add a requirement that decisions include reasons and be placed in related trial records. Minor wording and structural updates were also made before assent.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies heavily on judges' subjective opinions about what is 'necessary for the proper administration of justice' or 'in the interests of justice' to trigger appointments, orders and joint hearings. This leaves core coverage open to case-by-case argument rather than fixed rules.
Open to argument
“if he or she is of the opinion that it is necessary for the proper administration of justice”
Subjective test that turns on a judge's personal view rather than objective facts.“if the court or judge is satisfied that it is necessary for the proper administration of justice”
Same open-ended discretion applied to publication bans and jury procedures.“determine if it is in the interests of justice, including ensuring consistent decisions”
Broad, value-laden standard with no defined criteria for when joint hearings must occur.“unless the court is satisfied that it would not be in the interests of justice because, among other considerations, fresh evidence has been adduced”
Exception clause that invites prolonged litigation over what counts as 'interests of justice'.
Clear-cut
“The appointment of a judge as the case management judge does not prevent him or her from becoming the judge who hears the evidence on the merits.”
Clear rule on dual role that removes any ambiguity.“On application by the prosecutor or the accused or on his or her own motion, the Chief Justice or the Chief Judge”
Specifies exactly who may initiate and who decides, narrowing discretion to named officials.
Discretion. Almost all operative powers are granted to Chief Justices, Chief Judges or designated judges on the basis of their own opinions, with no regulations or ministerial involvement.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated 'opinion that it is necessary' language is vulnerable to a vagueness or overbreadth challenge under s. 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. A person affected by an order can readily argue the judge's opinion was unreasonable or that fresh evidence changes the 'interests of justice', but success depends on the record.
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.