An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

How it changed on the way

64% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (3,551 words introduced, 1,928 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its core aims of repealing mandatory minimum penalties, expanding conditional sentences, and creating diversion for simple drug possession. It added new rules on keeping records of warnings, conserving conviction records, an exception for service providers, and a four-year review by parliamentary committees.

• New rules require police to keep records of warnings or referrals for drug possession.

  After: “Record of warning or referral 10.4 (1) The police force to which a peace officer referred to in section 10.2 belongs shall keep a record of any warning given or referral made under subsection 10.2(1), including the identity of the individual warned or referred.”

• New rules govern how conviction records for simple possession are kept separate and eventually deemed never to have occurred.

  After: “Conservation of record — conviction 10.6 (1) Any record of a conviction that occurs before the day on which this section comes into force in respect of an offence under subsection 4(1) must be kept separate and apart from other records of convictions within two years after that day.”

• New exception protects service providers from possession offences when they hold substances for lawful disposal.

  After: “Exception for Service Providers Exception 10.7 No social worker, medical professional or other service provider in the community commits an offence under subsection 4(1) if, in the course of their duties, they come into possession of a substance included in Schedule I, II or III and they intend to, within a reasonable period, lawfully dispose of it.”

• New clause requires a comprehensive parliamentary review four years after the Act comes into force.

  After: “Review by committee 21 On the fourth anniversary of the day on which this Act comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Act is to be undertaken by the standing committee of each House that normally considers matters relating to justice.”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill sets fixed maximum prison terms and clear record-keeping timelines in multiple sections. It also creates broad discretion for officers and prosecutors to decide diversion based on opinions about principles and appropriateness.

Open to argument

• “consider whether it would be preferable, having regard to the principles set out in section 10.1”

  Relies on subjective judgment and open-ended principles rather than objective criteria.

• “within a reasonable period, lawfully dispose of it”

  Uses an undefined reasonableness standard open to argument.

Clear-cut

• “liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years”

  States a fixed numerical maximum that leaves no interpretive range.

• “two years after the conviction or two years after the expiry of any sentence imposed for the offence, whichever is later”

  Provides exact time periods and a clear whichever-is-later rule.

Discretion. Peace officers and prosecutors decide diversion or prosecution under sections 10.2 and 10.3 with wide latitude; the Governor in Council may make further regulations on records under subsection 10.6(3).

Challenging the law itself. Sections 10.2–10.3 could be challenged under Charter s. 7 for vagueness because they hinge on subjective opinions about appropriateness.

Disputing a charge under it. An accused would have difficulty disputing the offence itself once charged, as the decision to prosecute rests on the prosecutor's unreviewable opinion about the principles.

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.