Bill S-207, An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to repeal a regulation, would amend the Criminal Records Act and related federal laws, and repeal the Pardon Services Fees Order. It would replace the current record-suspension application system with expiry of criminal records after set waiting periods; its stated goal is to provide for record expiry. The supplied text does not say whether the bill has passed, so these are proposed changes, not provisions in force.
For adults, a record would generally expire five years after the sentence ends for an indictable offence or certain serious service offences, or two years after the sentence ends for summary-conviction offences or other service offences. For a person who was a child when the offence happened, there would be no extra waiting period after the sentence ends.
If the RCMP’s criminal-record system shows a conviction during the waiting period, or outstanding charges or an investigation at the end of it, expiry would not happen automatically. The Parole Board of Canada would have to notify the person within 30 days; the person could apply for expiry.
For such an application, the Board must order expiry if it is satisfied that expiry would support the person’s rehabilitation as a law-abiding citizen and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The applicant must show that expiry would support their rehabilitation.
An expiry would require federal criminal records to be kept separate and, under the bill, remove disqualifications or obligations imposed because of the conviction under federal Acts. It would also change related rules on employment forms, discrimination, immigration, DNA records, and other matters.
The bill would make applications free. Records covered by existing suspensions would be deemed to have expired under the amended Act. Unfinished suspension applications would be handled under transition rules in the bill.
People with criminal records: If the bill became law, the waiting period would start after the sentence has legally ended, including any probation and payment of fines. For prison sentences, the bill says not to count statutory-release periods or remission when working out the sentence’s expiry.
People whose records do not expire automatically: The bill provides a route to apply to the Board if the RCMP system shows a conviction during the waiting period, or outstanding charges or an investigation at the end. It does not set out detailed application steps, decision timelines, or an appeal process.
People with expired records: Employment application forms could not require disclosure of a conviction for which expiry has occurred. The Canadian Human Rights Act would treat such a conviction as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Some disclosure would still be allowed, including in specified circumstances for police or to enforce unpaid fines or victim surcharges.
People with sex-offender registration obligations: The bill would let some people apply for an order ending an obligation after a record expiry. One related rule says an obligation ends when satisfactory proof of expiry is given at a registration centre. The bill does not say every such obligation ends automatically on expiry.
People with an existing record suspension: The bill would deem records covered by suspensions granted before royal assent to have expired under the amended Act. The bill does not create a new independent agency; the Parole Board would make the relevant decisions, and its employees would handle application-related powers and duties.
The supplied text gives no commencement date or information about the bill’s current status. No publicly available information.
It does not define key terms such as “under investigation” or set out detailed application procedures, decision timelines, or appeals.
It allows regulations to add factors the Board may consider and to set circumstances for police disclosure, but those details are not in the bill.
The bill changes several federal laws, but the supplied material does not explain how every existing federal disqualification or obligation would interact with the broad rule that expiry removes those imposed because of a conviction.
It does not say how the Board would manage application volumes or what added staff or funding it would need.
The bill appears intended to make record relief happen without a person having to apply in ordinary cases, and to shorten the waiting periods from the current 10 and five years to five and two years for adults.
A possible argument for the approach is that keeping records separate and limiting disclosure could reduce the continuing effects of a conviction after the waiting period.
The bill would give people whose records do not expire automatically a chance to make their case to the Board, with a right to make written or oral representations if the Board proposes to refuse.
One concern is that the bill sets automatic expiry without a general Board review of conduct or offence type, except when the specified RCMP-system conditions trigger review.
The bill does not explain how investigations would be identified or resolved, which could delay expiry for people whose records are flagged.
The Board’s criteria include whether expiry would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but the bill leaves some factors to future regulations and gives no appeal route in the supplied text.
The bill requires Board work and makes applications free, but gives no funding or staffing estimate.