Bill C-66 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act
An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedNov. 28, 2017
- Debated in principleDec. 8, 2017
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 13, 2017
- Passed the second chamberMay 29, 2018
- Became lawJune 20, 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
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 28 November 2017, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness introduced Bill C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-66 creates a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and provides for the destruction or removal of the judicial records of those convictions from federal repositories and systems. It gives the Parole Board of Canada jurisdiction to order or refuse to order expungement of a conviction. The enactment deems a person who is convicted of an offence for which expungement is ordered never to have been convicted of that offence. The enactment provides that an application for an expungement order may be made in respec…
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
28% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,425 words introduced, 2,986 passed).
moderate changeintent kept
The bill kept its core purpose of creating an expungement process for certain historical convictions but refined wording in Criminal Code amendments on special pleas and foreign trials. Changes reordered phrases to correctly place references to expungement orders alongside existing pleas like autrefois convict.
- Adjusted order of terms in subsection 7(6) on trials outside Canada.
Before: “pardon or autrefois convict, an expungement order under the , that person”
After: “pardon or an expungement order under the autrefois convict, Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act , that person”
- Adjusted order of terms in subsection 465(7) on conspiracy trials outside Canada.
Before: “pardon or autrefois convict, an expungement order under the , the person”
After: “pardon or an expungement order under the autrefois convict, Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act , the person”
- Updated subsection 607(3) on disposal of special pleas.
Before: “The pleas of , autrefois acquit and pardon shall be disposed of by the judge without a jury before the accused is called on to plead further.”
After: “The pleas of , autrefois acquit , pardon and an expungement order under the autrefois convict Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act shall be disposed of by the judge without a jury before the accused is called on to plead further.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act uses defined terms, a fixed schedule of offences, and cross-references to Criminal Code provisions to set clear eligibility and effects. Some subjective language and broad order-making powers remain.
Open to argument
“any other individual who, in the opinion of the Board, is an appropriate representative of the person”
Relies on the Board's subjective judgment without objective criteria.“the Governor in Council is of the opinion that the criminalization of the activity constitutes a historical injustice”
Leaves addition of new offences to ministerial opinion rather than fixed statutory tests.
Clear-cut
“the person convicted of the offence is deemed never to have been convicted of that offence”
States a clear legal consequence with no further conditions.“the persons who participated in the activity were 16 years of age or older at the time the activity occurred”
Uses an objective age threshold tied to an existing Criminal Code defence.
Discretion. The Governor in Council may add offences and set criteria by order, and the Board decides who qualifies as an appropriate representative and whether evidence satisfies those criteria.
Challenging the law itself. The phrases 'in the opinion of the Board' and 'is of the opinion' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under section 7 of the Charter.
Disputing a charge under it. The Act creates an application process rather than direct prohibitions, so disputes arise mainly through judicial review of Board refusals rather than contested elements of an offence.
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.