Supplementary Estimates C 2020–21 And Main Estimates 2021–22

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Legislation

Bill C-3: Judicial Training on Sexual Assault Law and Social Context

• Bill C-3 is aimed at enhancing public confidence and sexual assault survivors’ confidence in the criminal justice system. The goal is to further continuing education for judges to help ensure that sexual assault matters are decided fairly and properly, without the influence of myths and stereotypes.
• It is also essential to public confidence in our justice system that judges be aware of and understand the social context in which they hear matters, including systemic racism and systemic discrimination, and that they understand the factors that may affect individuals’ engagement with the justice system. Such factors include gender, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, differing mental or physical abilities, age, socioeconomic background and experiences related to children and family violence.
• The Bill will also enhance accountability and transparency by requiring that judges provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault proceedings and that these reasons be set out in writing or in the record of the proceedings.
• Question: How does the bill address issues such anti-racism, discrimination and cultural-sensitivity?
  • Answer: The Government is committed to ensuring that judges have the training necessary to help ensure a criminal justice system that is free from discrimination and sensitive to the cultural context of those involved. As a result of amendments proposed by our Government, Bill C-3’s predecessor, former Bill C-337, was expanded to include social context education. Our Government was pleased to support a further amendment to Bill C-3 to specify that social context includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination. Social context education is intended to ensure judges are aware of and understand the social context in which they hear matters, and the factors that may affect individuals’ engagement with the justice system. Such factors include gender, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, differing mental or physical abilities, age, socioeconomic background and experiences related to children and family violence.
• Question: Should the bill be expanded to include other actors in the justice system?
  • Answer: Bill C-3 has been carefully crafted to ensure that the unique functions, and the constitutional role that judges fulfil, are protected and taken into account. While I agree that more needs to be done, other actors cannot simply be grafted onto this legislation. This would be better addressed in a different legislative vehicle.
• Question: Does the bill undermine judicial independence?
  • Answer: Bill C-3 respects the principle of judicial independence, which is critical to public confidence and a core constitutional principle. Judicial independence requires judicial control over the training and education of judges. This is why the National Judicial Institute, which is internationally recognized for its work on judicial education, would offer the relevant training.

Background:

Following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, and the opening of the new parliamentary session on September 23, 2020, former Bill C-5 was reintroduced as Bill C-3 on September 25, 2020.

Bill C-3, like its predecessor Bill C-5, is consistent with former Private Member’s Bill C-337, which was introduced during the 42^nd session of Parliament. Importantly, the Bill reflects the amendments to Bill C-337 adopted by the House of Commons providing for the inclusion of continuing education on social context in addition to matters relating to sexual assault law. It also incorporates the amendments to Bill C-337 proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Bill C-337 was adopted unanimously in the House of Commons, but had not been passed by the Senate at the dissolution of the 42^nd Parliament.

On October 19, 2020, Bill C-3 passed Second Reading in the House of Commons unanimously and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Committee decided not to hear from any witnesses and to proceed directly to clause-by-clause review. The Committee made several amendments to the bill, including amendments clarifying the role of the Canadian Judicial Council and addressing concerns around judicial independence, as well as an amendment specifying that social context includes systemic racism and systemic discrimination. On November 23, 2020, Bill C-3 passed Third Reading in the House unanimously.

On February 11, 2021, Bill C-3 passed Second Reading in the Senate and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The bill is scheduled to go before Committee on March 17, 2021.

In Budget 2017, Government provided the Canadian Judicial Council with $2.7 million over five years, and $0.5 million per year thereafter, to ensure that more judges have access to professional development, with a greater focus on gender and culturally-sensitive training.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)

• Bill C-6 reflects our commitment to protect the dignity and equality of LGBTQ2 people by criminalizing conversion therapy-related conduct.
• Bill C-6 would create five new Criminal Code offences that would prohibit profiting from, advertising or promoting conversion therapy, causing minors to undergo conversion therapy, including abroad, and forcing others to undergo conversion therapy.
• Bill C-6’s main objective is to protect the dignity and equality of LGBTQ2 people through Criminal Code amendments that seek to end conversion therapy, because it causes harm to those subjected to it, and to society more generally by positing that alternative sexual orientations and gender identities should be changed. This type of discriminatory messaging stigmatizes LGBTQ2 persons, undermines their dignity and negatively impacts their equality rights.
• Question: Why doesn’t Bill C-6 propose to criminalize practices, treatments or services that are aimed solely at changing a person’s gender expression?
  • Answer: Following an amendment by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the definition of “conversion therapy” in Bill C-6 now explicitly includes gender expression. The Bill targets practices, treatments or services designed to make a person heterosexual or cisgender, including by reducing or repressing non-cisgender gender expression.
• Question: Would Bill C-6 criminalize discussions about sexual orientation or gender identity, for example between family members?
  • Answer: Bill C-6 does not capture conversations or discussions that do not form part of a formalized intervention, such as a therapeutic treatment, in which personal viewpoints on sexual orientation or gender identity are expressed, including between family members or parishioners and religious officials.

Background:

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), which was introduced on October 1, 2020 and amended by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on December 11, 2020, defines “conversion therapy” as any practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change their gender identity or gender expression to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour, or non-cisgender gender expression.

The Bill also clarifies that its conversion therapy definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

• Specifically, the Bill would create five new Criminal Code offences that would criminalize:
• Causing minors to undergo conversion therapy (maximum term of imprisonment of five years on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction);
• Removing minors from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad (maximum term of imprisonment of five years on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction);
• Causing a person to undergo conversion therapy without their consent (maximum term of imprisonment of five years on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction);
• Profiting, or receiving a material benefit, from the provision of conversion therapy (maximum term of imprisonment of two years on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction); and,
• Promoting or advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy (maximum term of imprisonment of two years on indictment and two years less a day on summary conviction).

Three provinces (Ontario, Nova Scotia and PEI) have prohibited health care professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors (unless they are capable of consenting and do consent), and Quebec, New Brunswick and Yukon have introduced bills that would effect similar reforms. Some Canadian municipalities have also banned businesses from providing conversion therapy services (for example, Vancouver and Edmonton).

Medical Assistance in Dying – Bill C-7

Context: Bill C-7 proposes to broaden eligibility for medical assistance in dying beyond those whose death is reasonably foreseeable, with additional safeguards. It would also permit the waiver of final consent for those who are already approved, whose death is reasonably foreseeable, and who risk losing capacity to consent before receiving medical assistance in dying (MAID).

• On October 5, 2020, I re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), in response to the Québec Superior Court decision in Truchon. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.
• Bill C-7 would broaden eligibility for medical assistance in dying to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, with additional safeguards, and would permit the waiver of final consent for those who are already approved, whose death is reasonably foreseeable, and who risk losing capacity to consent before receiving medical assistance in dying.
• Canadians are eagerly awaiting these amendments, which will protect vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while at the same time supporting individual autonomy and reducing suffering.
• Question: Does Bill C-7 discriminate against persons with only a “mental illness” by excluding them from accessing MAID?
  • Answer: As tabled, the Bill included an exclusion for those with only a mental illness. I am confident this exclusion is constitutional, as it has a protective purpose and is not based on stigmatizing stereotypes. A Senate amendment to the Bill would cause the exclusion to cease to have effect 18 months after royal assent. The Government position is that the exclusion should cease to have effect 24 months after royal assent, and that this issue should be examined both by a panel of experts and by a joint parliamentary committee that would undertake a review of the legislation.
• Question: Does Bill C-7 discriminate against persons with disabilities by singling them out for access to an assisted death?
  • Answer: I am confident that Bill C-7 does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. Eligibility for MAID under the expanded law would not be based on negative stereotypes equating disability with loss of dignity or quality of life, but on respect for the autonomy of all persons with a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability to choose MAID as a response to intolerable suffering that cannot be alleviated by means acceptable to them.

Background:

Maid legislation

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), which has been in force since June 17, 2016, created exemptions from otherwise applicable criminal offences (aiding a person to die by suicide and culpable homicide), permitting practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying (MAID) in certain circumstances. The legislation requires a parliamentary review of its provisions, which was expected to begin in the summer of 2020 but has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On September 11, 2019, in the Truchon and Gladu case (Truchon), the Québec Superior Court struck down the eligibility criterion requiring that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable. The Superior Court of Québec has extended the suspension of the ruling until March 26, 2021 in order to give Parliament adequate time to complete its consideration of Bill C-7.

On October 5, 2020, the Minister of Justice re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), in response to the Québec Superior Court decision in Truchon. The Bill as introduced would: repeal the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” (RFND) criterion; exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness; create two sets of safeguards that apply depending on whether natural death is reasonably foreseeable; allow the provision of MAID on the basis of consent given in advance if the person’s death is reasonably foreseeable, they are eligible for MAID, and they risk losing capacity before their scheduled date to receive MAID; and expand data collection under the federal monitoring regime. RFND continues to function, however, as a means of assessing which procedural safeguards will apply in MAID requests with stronger safeguards in place where death is not foreseeable. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7 (introduced on February 24, 2020), which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.

The Senate adopted several amendments to Bill C-7, including a provision that would repeal the exclusion of persons with only a mental illness 18 months after royal assent (a sunset clause). The Government position as set out in the motion to respond to the Senate amendments would support the sunset clause but extend the period to 24 months, and in conjunction with this amendment, the Ministers of Health and Justice would be required to appoint a group of experts to make recommendations on safeguards. The proposed message back to the Senate would also include a proposal to establish a joint Senate-House committee to undertake the parliamentary review of MAID and report its recommendation within a year.

Bill C-13 / C-218 (single event sport betting)

Context: On February 25, 2020, Private Member’s Bill C-218 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting) was introduced by M.P. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon-Grasswood). On November 26, 2020, Bill C-13: An Act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting) was introduced by you. Both bills propose to decriminalize single event sport betting by removing the exclusion of single event sport betting from the definition of provincial and territorial “lottery schemes”.

• We support the decriminalization of single event sport betting through an amendment to the Criminal Code that will permit provinces and territories to expand their gaming and betting products into this area should they choose to do so.
• I intend to engage with the provinces and territories as well as with Indigenous nations, communities and organizations on the decriminalization of single event sport betting as well as the role of Indigenous people in the gaming industry and its regulation.
• Bringing existing betting activity into safe and regulated environments will divert money from criminal organizations and offshore betting platforms to provincial and territorial programming
• Question: Will Bill C-218 negatively impact the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency?
  • Answer: As drafted, Bill C-218 would impact the viability of the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency. I understand that testimony received by the Justice Committee has explained these impacts.

Background:

On February 25, 2020, Private Member’s Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting) was introduced by M.P. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon-Grasswood). On November 26, 2020, Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting) was introduced by you. Both bills propose to decriminalize single event sport betting by removing the exclusion of single event sport betting from the definition of provincial and territorial “lottery schemes”. Bill C-13 differs from Bill C-218 in that it preserves the federal government’s role with respect to pari-mutuel betting on horse races.

On February 17, 2021 the House of Commons adopted Bill C-218 at Second Reading and the Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) for study. Adopting the Bill at Second Reading signifies support for the principle and scope of Bill C-218. As a result, on February 18, 2021, the Speaker ruled that Bill C-13 could not progress.

Engagement with Provinces and Territories and Indigenous Nations, Communities and Organizations

Following the introduction of Bill C-13, you announced your intention to begin exploratory engagement with your provincial and territorial counterparts and on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-to-Crown basis with Indigenous nations, communities and organizations on gambling issues generally. [Redacted]

Impact on Viability of the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (CPMA)

[Redacted] Bill C-13 sought to maintain the status quo and prevent provincial and territorial activity in this area. Bill C-218 would permit PTs to offer certain types of betting products on horse-racing and therefore compete with the CPMA. These issues have been identified as part of the Committee deliberations on Bill C-218.

Link to Organized Crime

The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada in their 2019 Public Report on Organized Crime draws the link between unauthorized gambling and certain criminal organizations. They refer to a $4 billion estimate of gambling that goes through those organizations, estimated in the Canadian Gaming Association regarding potential spending through off-shore online sportsbooks.

Potential Size of Single Event Sport Betting Market in Canada

In 2011, the Canadian Gaming Association estimated the illegal Canadian sports betting market was between $10 to $40 billion annually. This estimate is based on comparisons with the US market at the time and figures from the US National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999. The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada also quotes figures from the Canadian Gaming Association when they estimate the size of the off-shore online sportsbook to be approximately $4 billion in Canada. The larger $10-$40 billion figures attempt to estimate the entire illegal sports betting market in Canada rather than just online betting on off-shore websites.

Bill C-15, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indgenous Peoples Act

Context: Bill C-15 was introduced by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General on December 3, 2020. Following engagement with Indigenous peoples and discussion with industry stakeholders and provinces and territories, the Bill, based on the model proposed in former Private Member’s Bill C-262, proposes obligations on the Government of Canada to take measures to align the laws of Canada with the Declaration; to develop and implement an action plan to implement the Declaration; and to report to Parliament annually on progress. Each of these obligations would need to be carried out in consultation and collaboration with Indigenous peoples. Second reading of the Bill began February 17, 2021.

• On December 3, 2020, I introduced Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, fulfilling a mandate commitment made in 2019 and reiterated in the September 2020 Speech from the Throne.
• Implementing the Declaration is a significant step forward on the shared path of reconciliation, and responds to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Call for Justice.
• If passed by Parliament, Bill C-15 would create a framework to advance the federal implementation of the Declaration in collaboration with Indigenous peoples through the alignment of federal laws over time; the development and implementation of an action plan; and through annual reporting to Parliament on progress.
• The requirements set out in Bill C-15 would also help structure and guide dialogue on combatting inequality and discrimination, as well as systemic racism, that lies at the root of many of the health, food security, housing, economic and other vulnerabilities that continue to impact Indigenous communities throughout Canada.

Background:

On December 3, 2020, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada introduced Bill C-15, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and continues to collaborate with Indigenous peoples on implementing the Declaration. If passed by Parliament, Bill C-15 would create a framework to advance the federal implementation of the Declaration in collaboration with Indigenous peoples through the alignment of federal laws over time; the development and implementation of an action plan; and through annual reporting on progress.

The Government of Canada developed the proposed legislation through engagement with representatives of National Indigenous Organizations, modern treaty partners and self-governing nations, rights-holders, Indigenous youth, Indigenous women, gender-diverse and two-spirit people, regional and other Indigenous organizations. Discussions were also held with provincial and territorial governments and industry stakeholders.

Building on the model proposed in former Private Member’s Bill C-262, the key objective of Bill C-15 is to create a legislated framework that would help advance self-determination, self-government, inclusion, economic participation, and equality for Indigenous peoples through the collaborative development of an action plan and the alignment of federal laws with the UN Declaration over time. Following Royal Assent, the bill would require the development of an action plan and measures to align federal laws with the Declaration in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples.

Both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls have called on all levels of government to adopt the UN Declaration as a framework for reconciliation (Calls to Action 43, 44, 46; Call for Justice 1.2v) including through a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain acts and to make certain consequential amendments (Firearms)

• Bill C-21 proposes changes to the Criminal Code, the Firearms Act and other federal statutes that would contribute to public safety, while respecting law abiding gun owners.
• Amongst other things, the Bill would create a “red flag regime” in the Criminal Code thatwould allow any person to apply to a judge to have a firearm removed from the possession of another individual if they reasonably believe that an individual’s access to a firearm poses a danger.
• Bill C-21 would also target criminals who are responsible for bringing illegal firearms across our borders and jeopardizing our safety by increasing maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years for trafficking, smuggling and other related offences.
• The Bill would further strengthen gun control by amending the Criminal Code to close the gap with respect to replica firearms; create a new offence of altering a cartridge magazine to exceed its lawful capacity; and grant public officer status to employees of the Bank of Canada and Royal Canadian Mint to enable them to carry out their security functions.
• Replica firearms are a risk to public safety because they look exactly like a real firearm. Because of this, they can be used to commit crime, can cause panic and fear and, because of their look, require police to respond as though they are real firearms.
• Question: What amendments are being made to deal with replica firearms and will this affect airsoft rifles and “toys”?
  • Answer: This Bill would not ban toys. The proposed changes address a gap in the law regarding replica firearms and would ensure that unregulated firearms, such as airguns, that exactly resemble conventional regulated firearms are “prohibited devices” and cannot be imported, exported, manufactured, transferred and sold in Canada. Airguns that do not exactly resemble a regulated firearm would not be affected.

Background:

On February 16, 2021, the Government introduced Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).

The measures are designed to protect public safety and address factors that contribute to gun violence. They aim to prevent firearms-related harm, including gender based and intimate partner violence, which is prevalent in our society today.

The Bill includes the following specific proposals:

• Increase maximum penalties from 10 to 14 years for firearms trafficking (sections 99 and 100) and smuggling (section 103), possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence (section 96) and possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm (section 95);
• Proposal of a “red flag” regime in the Criminal Code that would allow a member of the public or a peace officer to apply to a judge if they reasonably believe that an individual should not have access to firearms because they pose a danger to themselves or others. If a judge is satisfied that the grounds are met they shall make a temporary weapons prohibitions order of up to 30 days that would permit the immediate removal of firearms from that person. This will provide time for authorities to undertake a full investigation and hearing to determine whether a longer-term prohibition is warranted.
• Close the gap with respect to replica firearms. Currently some airguns are not captured by the definition of “replica firearm”, even if they exactly resemble a conventional regulated firearm. The Bill will close this gap to prohibit these types of airguns from importation, exportation and sale in Canada. It would not be an offence for current owners to continue to possess replica airguns;
• Create a new offence of altering a cartridge magazine to increase its lawful capacity; and,
• Propose legislative amendments to grant public officer status to employees of the Bank of Canada and the Royal Canadian Mint. These changes would ensure that they can possess any firearm that best suits their security needs in order to protect their premises and human life in the event of an attack.

Intersection with Bill C-22

Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, proposes to repeal MMPs for certain firearms offences, such as firearms trafficking and smuggling and possession of a weapon obtained by the commission of an offence, and Bill C-21 proposes to increase the maximum penalties of these offences from 10 to 14 years imprisonment. Together, the Bills would ensure that the courts can continue to impose tough sentences where the conduct is at extreme end of the spectrum of moral culpability while allowing courts to tailor appropriate sentences in situations with low moral culpability or important mitigating factors. The repeal of mandatory minimum penalties for these offences would address the disproportionate impact that they have on Indigenous peoples, as well as Black Canadians and members of marginalized communities.

Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

• Our government is committed to addressing systemic inequities at all stages of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing.
• On February 18, 2021, I introduced Bill C-22 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act).
• The proposed reforms target sentencing policies, such as mandatory minimum penalties and restrictions on the availability of conditional sentences that have contributed to the over-incarceration of Indigenous people, Black Canadians and marginalized people in the Canadian criminal justice system.
• Bill C-22 would also direct police and prosecutors to consider diversion for simple drug possession offences at an early stage.
• These legislative reforms respond to calls for action in these areas and are an important step that builds on ongoing Government efforts to make the criminal justice system fair, effective and equitable for all Canadians.
• Question: Why not decriminalize simple drug possession?
  • Answer: These changes are an important step to promoting more appropriate responses to substance use.

Background:

On February 18, 2021, you introduced Bill C-22 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act). The bill proposes to repeal mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment (MMPs) for all drug offences, one tobacco-related offence, and 13 firearm-related offences. MMPs would remain for offences such as murder, sexual assault (including all child sexual offences) and for firearm offences involving trafficking, import/export, use of a restricted or prohibited firearm or where the firearm offence is linked to organized crime. It would also allow for a greater use of conditional sentences (CSO), and would require police and prosecutors to consider diversion for simple drug possession cases instead of laying or proceeding with charges.

Bill C-22 responds to the commitment made in the 2020 Speech from the Throne, which recognizes the issue of systemic racism in the criminal justice system (CJS) and contains a commitment to introduce legislative reforms and make investments at all stages of the CJS to address systemic inequities. In January 2021, the Prime Minister released a Supplementary Mandate Letter directing you to enact legislation and make investments on a priority basis that address systemic inequities in the CJS, including to promote the enhanced use of pre- and post-charge diversion and to better enable courts to impose sentences appropriate to the circumstances of individual cases.

Bill C-22 would also respond to calls from various stakeholders for sentencing reforms to address this issue. For instance, the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for the elimination of Indigenous overrepresentation in correctional institutions over the next decade (CTA 30) and for amendments to the Criminal Code to allow trial judges to depart from MMPs and restrictions on the use of CSO (CTA 32). Similarly, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls called for the federal government to evaluate the impact of MMPs on the over-incarceration of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people and to take appropriate action to address their over-incarceration (CFJ 5.14). Finally, in June 2020, the Parliamentary Black Caucus issued a statement that included a number of reform proposals, including “reform (of) the justice and public safety systems to weed out anti-Black racism, systemic bias, and make the administration of justice and public security more reflective of and sensitive to the diversity of our country”.

Statistics on the overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples and Black Canadians

The overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples, Black Canadians and marginalized people in the CJS is well established. In 1999/2000, Indigenous peoples represented approximately 2% of the Canadian adult population but accounted for approximately 17% of admissions to both provincial/territorial and federal sentenced custody. In 2020, despite representing 5% of the Canadian adult population, Indigenous adults account for 30% of federally incarcerated inmates, and Indigenous women account for 42% of federally incarcerated women. Similarly, in 2018-2019, Black inmates represented 7.2% of the federal offender population but only 3% of the Canadian population.

MMPs have contributed to this overrepresentation, particularly for drug and firearm offences. Data show that between 2007/2008 and 2016/2017, 39% of Black and 20% of Indigenous offenders were admitted to federal corrections for an offence with MMP.

During that time, the proportion of Black offenders admitted to federal corrections for importing/exporting drugs or possessing drugs for the purposes of importing/exporting increased from 33% in 2007/2008 to 43% in 2016/2017.

Indigenous offenders comprised an increasingly large proportion of those admitted for a firearm-related offence punishable by a MMP, increasing from 18% in 2007/2008, to 40% by 2016/2017.

Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other acts (covid-19 response and other measures)

Context: Bill C-23 is part of the governmental response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian criminal courts. It aims to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system (CJS) with reforms that would, among other things, expand remote appearances (by videoconference and audioconference) and expand and update the telewarrant regime. These amendments would benefit the CJS beyond the pandemic as courts manage backlogs and seek greater uses of technology for judicial processes and for virtual proceedings.

• On February 24, 2021, the Government introduced Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures).
• Bill C-23 proposes amendments that would provide support to criminal courts in Canada by increasing the flexibility and efficiency of the criminal justice system during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, while protecting the safety and rights of all persons involved.
• Bill C-23 proposes reforms that would, among other things, expand the availability for remote appearances (by videoconference and audio conference) as well as expand and update the telewarrant regime.
• Bill C-23 was informed by discussions with provinces and territories, as well as input received from other key stakeholders, including the judiciary through the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19.

Background:

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Criminal Justice System

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the operation of the criminal courts in Canada, which must simultaneously protect the health and safety of all persons involved, as well as mitigate delays and protect the Charter right of an accused to be tried within a reasonable time. Canada’s criminal courts have been adapting and modernizing to address the challenges they face, but many remain unable to operate at their pre-pandemic capacity. Concerns are growing about case backlogs and the impact of court delays on the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s R v Jordan (2016) decision.

Legislative Reform

Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID-19 response and other measures) was introduced on February 24, 2021. It aims to respond to the challenges arising from, or exacerbated by, the pandemic in proposing reforms to support the safe, efficient and effective operation of criminal proceedings, with a view to enhancing access to justice for all participants during the pandemic and beyond.

Bill C-23 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to, among other things:

• expand, for the accused and offenders, the availability of remote appearances by videoconference and audioconference in certain circumstances;
• provide for the participation of prospective jurors in the jury selection process by videoconference in certain circumstances;
• allow for the use of electronic or other automated means for the purposes of the jury selection process;
• expand the power of courts to make case management rules permitting court personnel to deal with administrative matters for accused not represented by counsel;
• permit courts to order fingerprinting at the interim release stage and at any other stage of the criminal justice process if fingerprints could not previously be taken for exceptional reasons; and
• replace the existing telewarrant provisions with a process that permits a wide variety of search warrants, authorizations and orders to be applied for and issued by a means of telecommunication.

Bill C-23 also proposes to make amendments to the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act to correct minor technical errors identified during the implementation of former Bill C-75 (delays in the criminal justice system, 2019).

Consultations

Bill C-23 was informed by discussions at meetings of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety, as well as input from members of the judiciary through the Action Committee on Court Operations in Response to COVID-19 and other criminal justice system stakeholders.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page