Parliament AIIndependent · non-official
All bills

Bill C-228 · 43th Parliament · Justin Trudeau

Reduction of Recidivism Framework Act

An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism

Private member’s bill. Became law.

budget

  1. IntroducedDone
  2. Debated in principleDec. 10, 2020
  3. Studied by a committeeDone
  4. Passed its first chamberMay 5, 2021
  5. Passed the second chamberJune 21, 2021
  6. Became lawJune 28, 2021

Where members stand

Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.

How it changed on the way

36% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (668 words introduced, 647 passed). A committee amended it.

moderate changeintent mostly kept

The core purpose and most measures stayed the same, but the bill added a new requirement on risk-assessment tools and updated consultation language. Minor wording changes were made to two existing measures.

  • Consultation partners were expanded and rephrased.
    Before: “in collaboration with representatives of the provinces and in consultation with Indigenous groups and other relevant stakeholders such as non-governmental, non-profit, faith-based and private sector organizations”
    After: “in consultation with representatives of the provinces, with a variety of Indigenous governing bodies and Indigenous organizations and with other relevant stakeholders such as non-governmental, non-profit, faith-based and private sector organizations”
  • Wording of pilot-project measure was adjusted.
    Before: “initiate pilot projects and develop standardized and evidence-based programs to reduce recidivism;”
    After: “initiate pilot projects and develop standardized and evidence-based programs aimed at reducing recidivism;”
  • Wording of reintegration measure was adjusted.
    Before: “promote the reintegration of people who have been incarcerated back into the community by ensuring that they have access to adequate and ongoing resources as well as employment opportunities in order to lessen the likelihood of their reoffending;”
    After: “promote the reintegration of people who have been incarcerated back into the community through access to adequate and ongoing resources as well as employment opportunities in order to lessen the likelihood of their reoffending;”
  • A new measure on risk assessment was added.
    After: “evaluate and improve risk assessment instruments and procedures to address racial and cultural biases and ensure that all people who are incarcerated have access to appropriate programs that will help reduce recidivism.”

How precisely it is written

42VaguePrecise

mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard

The Act sets fixed timelines and procedural steps for the Minister to develop and table a recidivism framework. It leaves the substance of that framework defined by open-ended phrases and broad discretion.

Open to argument

  • “adequate and ongoing resources as well as employment opportunities”
    Uses subjective standard of adequacy without measurable criteria.
  • “standardized and evidence-based programs”
    Does not define what counts as evidence-based or how standardization is verified.
  • “international best practices”
    No criteria given for selecting or implementing such practices.
  • “his or her conclusions and recommendations”
    Effectiveness assessment rests on the Minister's subjective judgment.

Clear-cut

  • “Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force”
    Exact deadline tied to coming-into-force date.
  • “within 10 days after the day on which the report is tabled in Parliament”
    Fixed publication window after tabling.
  • “on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed”
    Precise parliamentary sitting-day window for tabling.

Discretion. The Minister decides the actual content of the framework, which stakeholders to consult beyond the listed groups, which pilot projects to start, and how to measure effectiveness, with only high-level categories required.

Challenging the law itself. The Act creates duties on the Minister to prepare reports rather than directly limiting individual rights, so Charter claims under section 7 or 15 would require specific future implementation to be justiciable.

Disputing a charge under it. Any alleged failure by the Minister would turn on whether broad phrases such as 'develop and implement' or 'include measures to' were satisfied, which is open to wide interpretation.

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?

The evidence has not been searched yet.

Who lobbied on it

No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.

Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.