Bill C-12 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Drug-Free Prisons Act
An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 8, 2013
- Debated in principleDec. 8, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberApril 21, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 16, 2015
- Became lawJune 17, 2015
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
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
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 8 November 2013, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (Drug-Free Prisons Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-12 amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require the Parole Board of Canada (or a provincial parole board, if applicable) to cancel parole granted to an offender if, before the offender’s release, the offender tests positive in a urinalysis, or fails or refuses to provide a urine sample, and the Board considers that the criteria for granting parole are no longer met. It also amends that Act to clarify that any conditions set by a releasing authority on an offender’s parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence may include conditions regarding the offender’s use of drugs or alcohol, including in cases when that use has b…
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
58% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (692 words introduced, 566 passed).
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core rules on cancelling parole after a positive drug test and allowing drug or alcohol conditions stayed the same from introduction to royal assent. Explanatory notes that quoted and explained the old law were dropped from the final statute.
- Explanatory notes quoting prior text of subsection 133(3) were removed.
Before: “(3) The releasing authority may impose any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender.”
- Explanatory notes quoting prior text of subsection 156(1) were removed.
Before: “(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations providing for anything that by this Part is to be provided for by regulation and, generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Part.”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: EasyDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies heavily on the Board's subjective opinion and broad phrases about reasonable conditions and risk factors. This leaves wide room for argument over when parole must be cancelled or what conditions apply.
Open to argument
“any conditions on the parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence of an offender that it considers reasonable and necessary”
The words 'reasonable and necessary' are open-ended standards that invite prolonged debate.“including in cases when that use has been identified as a risk factor in the offender's criminal behaviour”
The term 'identified as a risk factor' is undefined and depends on discretionary assessment.
Clear-cut
“fails or refuses to provide a urine sample when demanded to provide one under section 54, or provides under that section a urine sample for which the result of the urinalysis is positive, as that term is defined in the regulations”
The trigger is tied to a specific statutory demand and a term defined by regulation.
Discretion. The Parole Board and releasing authorities retain broad discretion to decide whether criteria are still met and what conditions are reasonable, with further details left to regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'in its opinion' and undefined risk-factor language could be challenged under Charter section 7 for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. An offender could dispute whether the Board's opinion was properly formed or whether a condition truly addresses a risk factor, though the mandatory 'shall cancel' language narrows some arguments.
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.