Bill C-51 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 6, 2017
- Debated in principleJune 15, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 11, 2017
- Passed the second chamberOct. 30, 2018
- Became lawDec. 12, 2018
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
- Murray SinclairSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Anthony Housefatherexplicitly calls the bill good and praises its clarifications and retained provisions.
- Pam Damoffstates she is pleased to speak in support of Bill C-51 and its sexual assault reforms
- Marco MendicinoPraises the bill as reflecting government commitment and thanks members for strengthening it via amendments.
- Rob NicholsonAgrees with many revisions in the bill while discussing its scope.
- Alistair MacGregorstates he voted in favour of the bill
- Kevin Lamoureuxdescribes the bill as important legislation reflecting thorough review and needed modernization
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 contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament at [email protected]. On 6 June 2017, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-51 amends the Criminal Code to amend, remove or repeal passages and provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional or that raise risks with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as passages and provisions that are obsolete, redundant or that no longer have a place in criminal law. It also modifies certain provisions of the Code relating to sexual assault in order to clarify their application and to provide a procedure applicable to the admissibility and use of the complainant’s or a witness’s record when in the possession of the accused. This enactment also amends the Department of Justice Act to require th…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Time allocation for Bill C-51 · 2018-12-10 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsKim PateReplaces lines in clauses 10 and 19 to expand the definition of incapacity to consent with specific factors and adds subsections preventing inference of capacity from other activities.Outcome not recorded in the debate · Oct. 23, 2018 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
70% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (14,872 words introduced, 7,814 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core aim of cleaning unconstitutional and obsolete Criminal Code provisions and tightening sexual assault rules, but Parliament added new consent definitions, repealed extra sections on obscenity and religion, and updated several procedural clauses on court attendance. About 70 percent of the introduced text was altered, removed or expanded before royal assent.
- New consent rules were inserted for sexual assault of a person with a disability.
After: “Consent (2.1) Consent must be present at the time the sexual activity in question takes place.”
- Section 165 was repealed outright.
After: “13 Section 165 of the Act is repealed.”
- Sections 177 and 178 were replaced with narrower obstruction offences.
After: “14 Sections 177 and 178 of the Act are replaced by the following:”
- Clause on obscene materials was narrowed by repealing two paragraphs.
Before: “(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene , within the meaning of subsection 163”
After: “(3) Paragraphs 163(2)(c) and (d) of the Act are repealed.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The text repeatedly uses the undefined phrase 'without lawful excuse' or 'without lawful justification or excuse' to define the scope of many offences, leaving their application open to factual disputes. A smaller number of provisions supply fixed maximum sentences, numbered lists of sections, and explicit definitions that create clearer boundaries.
Open to argument
“without lawful excuse”
This phrase appears in multiple offences without any statutory definition, requiring courts to decide its meaning in each case.“without lawful justification or excuse”
The term is left undefined and subjective, inviting prolonged argument over what counts as justification.“knowing that the device has been used or is intended to be used”
Relies on proof of subjective knowledge and future intent, both open to contest.“for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization”
Broad and relational language that lacks objective criteria for what constitutes association.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
Supplies a fixed numerical maximum that removes uncertainty about the penalty range.“section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.011, 279.02, 279.03, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3”
Uses an exhaustive numbered list of sections rather than open-ended language.“slot machine means any automatic machine or slot machine, other than any automatic machine or slot machine that dispenses as prizes only one or more free games on that machine”
Provides a detailed, exclusionary definition that narrows the term.
Discretion. Almost no power is delegated to ministers or regulations; interpretation rests with courts applying the listed phrases.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of undefined 'lawful excuse' language could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under Charter section 7.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether a 'lawful excuse' existed or whether the required knowledge or association was present.
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.