6. Other Issues

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Advice to the Minister – Indigenous Justice Strategy

The overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system is a serious and complex issue rooted in systemic racism and the legacy of colonialism. The Government of Canada is committed to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and to co-developing with Indigenous partners an Indigenous Justice Strategy (IJS) that is informed by the lived experiences of First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

• The Government of Canada recognizes that systemic discrimination and inequities exist within the justice system, contributing to the ongoing crisis of overrepresentation of Indigenous people. In response to these challenges, we are committed to co-developing an IJS with Indigenous partners and in close collaboration with the provinces and territories.
• This strategy will identify the legislative, program and policy measures needed to support the revitalization of Indigenous laws, legal traditions and justice systems, while also creating needed change within the existing criminal justice system.
• As part of the $24.2 million over three years (until 2023-24) provided by Budget 2021 to advance this work, $11 million was distributed to 38 Indigenous governments, communities and organizations – reflecting the diversity of Indigenous perspectives – to help them undertake their own engagements with their members to inform the development of the Strategy. Justice Canada also engaged directly with a diverse representation of Indigenous voices through two waves of engagement over the last two and half years, consisting of virtual dialogue sessions and in-person gatherings held across the country. The outcomes of this broad engagement informed the development of an IJS Key Elements Consultation Draft, identifying shared priorities for action.
• Budget 2024 proposes to provide Justice Canada with an additional $25.1 million over three years (until 2026-27) to renew funding for capacity building and continued engagement with Indigenous partners throughout the development and early implementation of the IJS.
• This funding will allow for the next phase of engagement, beginning with the release of the IJS Key Elements Consultation Draft in Spring 2024 for a period of online public validation and targeted consultations with Indigenous partners, provinces and territories. A parallel process of co-development with key Indigenous partners will be launched at the same time, with the intent of releasing a final co-developed IJS in Fall 2024.
• Justice Canada has been working to balance the need for urgency and action with the need to take appropriate time to ensure the IJS outlines a set of key objectives and priorities which address the needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, as well as the key federal, provincial and territorial partners who will be required to implement them.
• Question: What engagement has been undertaken thus far to inform the development of the Indigenous Justice Strategy?
  • The perspectives of Indigenous peoples are at the heart of this transformative work. Since 2022, 38 Indigenous governments, communities and organizations have been engaging with their members and citizens on the IJS. In December 2023, these funded partners submitted their reports on the outcomes of their engagement and recommendations for the IJS.
  • In parallel, Justice Canada has engaged directly with a diverse representation of First Nations, Inuit and Métis voices, including Indigenous women, youth, Elders, 2SLGBTQI+ persons, Indigenous people residing in urban areas, as well as those with lived experience in the justice system.
  • Given their key role and jurisdiction in relation to the administration of justice in Canada, provinces and territories have also been invited to participate in the Justice Canada-led engagement sessions with Indigenous partners and other key stakeholders. Moreover, discussions on the IJS and other ongoing measures to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system will continue at federal, provincial and territorial meetings, including in meetings with National Indigenous Organizations.
• Question: What will the Indigenous Justice Strategy contain/address?
  • The IJS Key Elements Consultation Draft, developed by Justice Canada based on the outcomes of the broad engagements undertaken to date, identifies 24 shared priorities for action. The planned validation and co-development processes will build on this early draft to create a final distinctions-based IJS by Fall 2024.
  • This final strategy will address issues that span across the justice system continuum, from prevention to re-integration. This includes restorative and Indigenous justice approaches, the revitalization of Indigenous justice systems and legal traditions, self-governance in the administration of justice and legislative reforms.

Background

In January 2021, the Prime Minister mandated the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada with “developing, in consultation and cooperation with provinces, territories, and Indigenous partners, an Indigenous Justice Strategy to address systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system.” This was reiterated in the December 2021 supplementary mandate letter, along with an additional mandate to advance “the priorities of Indigenous communities to reclaim jurisdiction over the administration of justice in collaboration with the provinces and territories, and support and fund the revitalization of Indigenous laws, legal systems and traditions.”

Justice Canada-led engagement

To compliment the Indigenous-led engagement, Justice Canada has been engaging directly with a diverse representation of Indigenous voices, including Indigenous justice experts, Elders, 2SLGBTQI+ people, women, youth and Indigenous people in urban areas, to help identify priority gaps. The first wave of 26 virtual dialogue sessions, from November 2022 to March 2023, convened over 700 participants across various distinctions and regions. The outcomes of this engagement are captured in a What We Learned Report, which is publicly available on the Justice Canada website.

In April 2023, Justice Canada launched Wave 2 of its engagement on the Indigenous Justice Strategy, which concluded in December 2023. As part of this wave, Departmental officials organized, alongside Indigenous and provincial/territorial partners, in-person sessions in each jurisdiction (with the exception of Northwest Territories, as they were in a forest fire crisis at the time), following each with broader virtual gatherings. This wave also consisted of 14 in-person sessions held in 11 federal correctional institutions and section 81 facilities. Reporting on this second wave will be published online in Spring 2024.

Linkages to other Indigenous justice priorities

The Indigenous Justice Strategy will respond to a number of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice that relate to addressing systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system, whether as victims, accused or offenders. It also addresses the following measure in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act Action Plan (released on June 21, 2023):

Shared Priority Action Plan Measure 28 – Increase access to justice for Indigenous peoples, strengthen communities and advance self-determination by:

Finalizing an Indigenous Justice Strategy, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous partners, provinces and territories, that will provide the framework for concrete actions to address systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Canadian justice system.

Advice to the Minister – Canada’s Black Justice Strategy

The Government has placed combatting racism as a priority and is supporting a whole-of-government approach to address it within its institutions.

• The Government of Canada recognizes that anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination exist and are rooted in Canada’s history, and that Black communities continue to live with the effects of prejudice, discrimination, and hatred. That is why the Government has placed combatting racism as a priority and is supporting a whole-of-government approach to address it within its institutions.
• As part of the Government’s commitment to ensure that all people are treated equally before and under the law, we are developing Canada’s Black Justice Strategy. The Strategy is being developed in consultation with Black communities, as well as the provinces and territories, to address anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination that has led to the overrepresentation of Black people in the criminal justice system, including as victims and survivors of crime.
• The Strategy will aim to ensure equal treatment for all people in Canada by confronting anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination. The successful implementation of the Strategy could help increase confidence that the justice system is fair and equal for all people in Canada.
• Question: When will the Strategy be ready?
  • Canada’s Black Justice Strategy consists of the external Steering Group Report, and the Government of Canada’s action plan that will be developed in response to the Report. We anticipate releasing the action plan later this year.
• When will the report be publicly available?
  • We anticipate that the external Steering Group Report will be made available in the coming months on the Justice Canada website.

Background

In December 2021, the Prime Minister mandated the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to develop Canada’s Black Justice Strategy (the Strategy) with the support of the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, and the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions, and Intergovernmental Affairs, and in consultation and cooperation with provinces, territories, and Black communities.

The Strategy aims to: i) address anti-Black racism and systemic discrimination that has led to the overrepresentation of Black people in the criminal justice system, including as victims of crime; and ii) ensure that all people in Canada have access to equal treatment before and under the law, as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In February 2023, an external Steering Group comprised of nine experts and leaders from Black communities, including two co-authors, was established to provide strategic advice to the Government of Canada on key elements for the development of the Strategy, which included providing a Framework to guide engagements and consultations with Black communities.

The Framework, which was published on the Justice Canada website in September 2023, sets out the challenges facing Black people in Canada who are involved in the criminal justice system, including a historical perspective, a legal analysis, a review of existing statistics, a review of recommendations from existing studies and reports, and an identification of knowledge gaps. The Framework also sets out five pillars, or themes, relevant to Black peoples’ experiences with the criminal justice system, and key recommendations from earlier studies and reports under these themes. The five pillars are:

1. Social determinants of justice (income, employment, stable housing, education, and health);
2. Policing;
3. Courts;
4. Corrections; and
5. Parole, Re-entry, and Reintegration.

The Framework guided the community-based consultation process that occurred from September to October 2023. Justice Canada established contracts with 12 Black-led community-based organizations to lead the consultations and engagements with Black communities in nine provinces and territories across the country. To complement this process and ensure that those who were not able to participate in community consultations and engagements could contribute to this important work, Justice Canada also launched an online survey that was available for input until October 20, 2023.

The outcomes of the community and online consultations and engagements were shared with the Steering Group to develop the recommendations for concrete actions to address the overrepresentation of Black people in the criminal justice system, including as victims of crime.

The Steering Group submitted its Report in March 2024, and Justice Canada is leading the development of the Government of Canada’s action plan to address the recommendations included in the report.

R. v. Bykovets, 2024 SCC 6

On March 1^st, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R. v. Bykovets, holding that a police request for an IP address associated with suspected criminal activity intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

• The Supreme Court’s Bykovets decision make clear that a request for an IP address by law enforcement is a search within the meaning of section 8 of the Charter.
• IP addresses are important in any investigation that implicates the use of telecommunications.
• A number of warrants and orders already exist in the Criminal Code to enable law enforcement to obtain IP addresses when sought for criminal investigations.
• That said, my department continues to work with partners and monitors ongoing litigation to examine the impact of Bykovets given its potential impacts.

If pressed on the necessity of law reform as a result of Bykovets

• There are no current gaps in the Criminal Code as a result of the decision.
• It includes a wide range of existing authorities for law enforcement to seek warrants or production orders, including to obtain IP addresses.
• However, as a result of this decision, my department has been examining its impacts in other areas of law, in collaboration with federal partners, as well as provincial and territorial counterparts, and challenges and potential solutions resulting from the decision.
• This engagement is important to understand the implications of the decision and whether any next steps are required, including legislative reform.

If pressed about the impact of Bykovets on Bill C-63

• Bill C-63 would amend An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service (Mandatory Reporting Act) to require internet service providers to include transmission data, including IP addresses, in their reports to police of content that is manifestly child pornography.
• In other words, lawful authority would exist for the provision of IP addresses under this Act, which is entirely consistent with the Bykovets decision.

Background

On March 1^st, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision in R. v. Bykovets (2024 SCC 6) holding that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Internet Protocol (IP) addresses such that a request by police for an IP address is a search within the meaning of section 8 of the Charter. In its reasons the majority made statements suggesting that prior judicial authorization would be required for police to obtain IP addresses.

Facts:

In September 2017, the Calgary police commenced an investigation related to the purchase of virtual gift cards using fraudulent credit card information. The payments were processed by a subsidiary of the credit card processor, Moneris. Police contacted Moneris to obtain the IP addresses used for the transactions, and Moneris voluntarily identified two. The police then used a publicly accessible lookup website and learned that the IP addresses had been issued by TELUS. Police then obtained a production order compelling TELUS to disclose the subscriber information for each IP address, as required by the SCC’s previous judgment in R. v. Spencer (2014 SCC 43).

Prior to trial, Mr. Bykovets brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence discovered as a result of the police’s use of his IP addresses, alleging that the police had infringed his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

The trial judge denied the application, holding that the police’s request to Moneris was not a search under section 8 of the Charter because Mr. Bykovets did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Bykovets’ appeal, largely for the reasons given by the trial judge.

Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada:

Mr. Bykovets’ appeal to the SCC raised a single issue: does a reasonable expectation of privacy attach to an IP address alone? A majority of the SCC answered in the affirmative.

The majority characterized the request by the police for the IP addresses as a search within the meaning of section 8. According to the majority, police were not “really after” IP addresses in the abstract. Rather, police were after the information an IP address tends to reveal about a specific Internet user including their online activity and, ultimately, their identity as the source, possessor, or user of that information. Hence, an IP address provided the police with the means through which to draw immediate and direct inferences about the user behind specific Internet activity.

The private nature of the subject matter was critical in the majority’s conclusion that Mr. Bykovets’ expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable. The SCC found that, on balance, the intensely private nature of the information an IP address may reveal strongly suggests that the public’s interest in being left alone should prevail over the government’s interest in advancing its law enforcement goals.

The majority of the SCC made statements suggesting that police would therefore need prior judicial authorization to obtain an IP address to link online activities to an identifiable individual.

Conclusion:

The SCC decision in Bykovets follows upon the related decision in R. v. Spencer (2014 SCC 43), in which the SCC found individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their subscriber information when linked to an IP address, which would be the key to unlocking an Internet user’s online activity.

The Criminal Code already includes search and seizure provisions that allow law enforcement to obtain transmission data, which includes IP addresses. These orders and warrants are issued on the standard of reasonable suspicion. Therefore, there is no legislative gap in the Criminal Code in relation to lawful authority for law enforcement to obtain IP addresses.

Bill C-63 (introduced in House of Commons on February 26, 2024) includes amendments to the “Mandatory Reporting Act” that will require Internet service providers to include transmission data (including IP addresses) in their reports to police of content that is manifestly child pornography.

The Department is assessing the impacts of the Bykovets decision more broadly and is monitoring litigation that could help clarify the scope of application of the decision. For example, a recent lower court decision in New Brunswick found that the voluntary provision of IP addresses to police was permitted in that case because the RCMP did not take investigative steps or seek out information to identify the IP address ultimately linked to the accused. The issues surrounding Bykovets are currently the subject of litigation before the Federal Court in the context of the CSIS Act warrant applications.

The Department has also engaged with other federal departments and agencies and with provincial and territorial partners to gain their perspectives on the impact of the Bykovets decision in their jurisdiction, such as in the areas of national security and child sexual exploitation and abuse material.

Intimidation and Obstruction at Religious and other Cultural Institutions

To provide you with an overview of concerns regarding intimidating conduct or obstructionist behaviour at religious institutions or other cultural institutions.

• I am aware of the of ongoing protest activity that has occurred in places across Canada in relation to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, including protests outside of Jewish religious and cultural institutions.
• The rights to free expression, peaceful assembly, and freedom of religion are guaranteed by our Charter and are instrumental to our democratic fabric. We should do all we can to respect and affirm these rights. On the other hand, we also have a responsibility to protect people in Canada from intimidation and threats.
• Canadian laws, including our criminal law, help ensure the protection of the public in these situations. I have asked my officials to review these laws and to provide me with their views on whether more can be done to reinforce our framework. I know that similar attention is being paid by our provincial and territorial partners and, indeed, we all have a role to play to ensure that people are safe when accessing places that are important for their community.

If asked about how existing criminal law applies in the context of protests:

• The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions that address harmful conduct, including where that conduct may occur in the context of a protest.
• These offences include causing a disturbance in a public place (section 175), common nuisance (section 180), criminal harassment (section 264), uttering threats (section 264.1), all forms of assault (section 266-268), extortion (section 346), intimidation (section 423), and mischief to property (section 430).
• The Criminal Code also contains a number of provisions to minimize the incursion on fundamental freedoms and limit the scope of conduct captured by offences to avoid the criminalization of peaceful protest activities, including certain defences and offence provisions that are tailored to capture only narrow categories of harmful behaviour.

If asked about if and when the Government will be pursing law reform:

• As I have said, my officials are currently considering this issue. If changes are required, I will not hesitate to move quickly to advance them.

Background

The ongoing circumstances in the Middle East have generated significant reaction here in Canada and around the world. In recent weeks, certain pro-Palestinian protests have taken place outside of Jewish religious and cultural institutions. In some cases, pro-Palestinian protests have been met with pro-Israel counter-protests, leading to clashes between the groups and some arrests being laid for assault and weapons-related charges. These events occurred as major Canadian cities are reporting a dramatic spike in antisemitic and Islamophobic criminal incidents in recent months, which have included hate-motivated crimes of vandalism, threats, and violent attacks targeting religious and cultural institutions.

In the provinces and territories (PTs), a number of civil measures have been used to address recent protests that have targeted religious and cultural institutions. For example, on March 18, 2024, the mayor of the City of Vaughan announced a proposed bylaw that would prohibit “demonstrations of a nature that are intended to intimidate, incite hatred, violence, or discrimination within 100 metres of the boundary of a property where a religious institution, school, childcare centre, or hospital is located.” The effect of the proposed bylaw is to create a buffer zone between the demonstrations and the designated locations.

PTs have also developed initiatives designed to counter the spread of hate towards identifiable groups. For example, in December 2023, Ontario announced increased funding to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia, which included up to $20,000 to help community institutions (e.g. synagogues, mosques, and faith-based schools) with additional security costs and building repairs. British Columbia is currently developing broad anti-racism legislation to address these issues, which is expected to be introduced in the spring of 2024. At the federal level, Budget 2024 proposed $273.6 million over six years, and $29.3 million ongoing, for Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate to support community outreach and law enforcement reform, tackle the rise of hate crimes, enhance community security, counter radicalization, and increase support for victims.

Criminal law in the context of protests

The Criminal Code contains offences of general application that address violence and harmful conduct committed against all persons and property, including in the context of protests. These include: causing a disturbance in a public place (section 175); obstructing clergyman and disturbing religious worship (section 176); common nuisance (section 180); criminal harassment (section 264); uttering threats (section 264.1); all assaults (section 266-268); intimidation (section 423); and, mischief to property/obstruction (section 430).

The offence of mischief (section 430) contains a defence (subsection 430(7)), which provides that no person is guilty of an offence of mischief by reason only that they attend at or near, or approach, a place for the purpose only of obtaining and communicating information. The purpose of this defence is to recognize, protect, and preserve public debate and free speech. Another example exists for the offence of intimidation in the context of healthcare services (subsection 423.2(1)). That offence contains a high mens rea threshold of “intent to provoke a state of fear”, which restricts the scope of conduct captured by the offence so that it is tailored to a narrow category of harmful behaviour.

Other Issues – Violent Crime

The Government of Canada is committed to addressing violent crime in a meaningful way with a view to lower incidents of violent crime over time.

• The Government of Canada recognizes that violent crime is a concern and has significant impacts for victims of crime and entire communities alike. Addressing violent crime requires concerted action by all levels of government but let me be clear that we are playing our part.
• We have introduced, and Parliament has enacted, important criminal law reforms to tackle violent crime. These include strengthening bail laws, robust responses to sexual offending, giving victims of crime a greater voice in the criminal justice system, stronger laws to address gun crime, and more recently, we have introduced a proposal to tackle hate crime, both online and offline.
• It is equally important to recognize that law reform is not the only answer to tackle violent crime. That is why we have also significantly invested in various programs targeted at preventing violent crime and responding to the impacts of violent crime.
• Question: Your Government had a chance to go further on bail reform. Why did you not take this opportunity?
  • The bail regime under the Criminal Code is clear: a person should not be released on bail if doing so would jeopardize public safety.
  • Our changes strengthened the bail system’s response to violent crime. Bill C-48 provided new tools to address serious repeat violent offending with a weapon, firearms offences, and intimate partner violence by making it more difficult for individuals accused of such offences to be released on bail.
• Question: Why shouldn’t persons convicted of multiple murders be subject to consecutive periods of parole ineligibility?
  • I want to say that I understand the feelings of families and survivors of crimes that involve multiple murders. Any murder shocks our conscience, and this is exacerbated in mass casualty situations.
  • It is important to remember that the penalty for murder remains an automatic life sentence, meaning an individual will be subject to the jurisdiction and oversight of the Correctional Service of Canada for the rest of their natural life and the fact that parole may become available does not mean it will be granted.
  • We will continue to work with all partners to ensure public safety, and that our criminal laws work as intended and in a constitutionally compliant way.
• Question: Why has the Government made conditional sentence orders available for a broad range of offences?
  • Conditional sentence orders are only appropriate for offenders facing short terms of imprisonment, and only where it is determined that serving their sentence in the community does not pose a risk to public safety and is not otherwise inconsistent with the principles of sentencing, including to denounce unlawful conduct and to acknowledge the harm done to victims.
  • I am confident in the ability of criminal courts to make the right decision when imposing conditional sentence orders, guided by the principles of sentencing.
  • Where there are issues with trial courts’ exercise of discretion at sentencing, there are rights of appeal to ensure that these decisions are reviewed when appropriate.
• Question: Will the Government ensure that mandatory minimum penalties remain available for all child sexual offences?
  • Our government is committed to ensuring that our criminal laws, including our sentencing laws, are constitutional.
  • All child sexual offences are punishable by significant maximum penalties. Mandatory minimum penalties are available, unless they have been found unconstitutional by our courts.
  • I am entirely confident in the ability of sentencing judges to impose fit sentences and, if they do not, prosecutors can appeal such decisions.

Background

According to Statistics Canada, Canada’s Violent Crime Severity Index rose 5% in 2022 and is at its highest point since 2007. That said, reported instances of violent crime have been relatively consistent going back to 1992. Over this period, the highest reported number of police-reported instances was 1,084 per 100,000 persons (1992) and the lowest reported number of police-reported instances was 736 per 100,000 persons (2014).

Increases in reported instances of robbery, extortion, homicide, and sexual assault contributed to the increase in 2022.

Legislative reform to address violent crime

Examples of legislative reforms introduced and enacted to address violent crime include:

In 2018, former Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, amended the Criminal Code to clarify and strengthen Canada’s sexual assault laws by clarifying important elements governing consent to sexual activity (no consent when person is unconscious; consent must be contemporaneous to sexual activity); ensuring that victims can make submissions and be represented by counsel in rape shield proceedings; and creating a special procedure to determine the admissibility of a victim’s private records in the accused’s possession.

In 2019, former Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, enacted amendments that strengthened criminal laws in the context of violent crime such as: a new form of reverse onus at bail for repeat offenders charged with intimate partner violence (IPV) offences; a requirement that courts consider whether an accused is charged with an IPV offence when determining whether to release or detain them; clarified that strangulation, choking, and suffocation constitute more serious forms of assault, and that strangling, suffocating or choking a person while sexually assaulting them constitutes a more serious form of sexual assault; the possibility of seeking a higher maximum penalty in cases involving a repeat IPV offender.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), received Royal Assent on December 5, 2023, and came into force on January 4, 2024. This bill made targeted amendments to the bail provisions of the Criminal Code to address serious repeat violent offending with a weapon, firearm offences and offences involving IPV. These amendments included an expansion of the reverse onus at bail for IPV so that it not only captures accused persons who have been previously convicted of an IPV offence, but also those who have previously been discharged of such an offence.

Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), received Royal Assent on December 15, 2023. It includes measures to combat gun crime. These measures include codifying the national handgun freeze, brings increased penalties for firearms smuggling and trafficking, and provisions to better address the role of firearms in intimate partner and gender-based violence.

Bill C-63 (An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts), which completed Second Reading in February 2024, would create a new hate crime offence to explicitly denounce hateful conduct. It would apply to any offence in the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on listed grounds and would carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Funding initiatives

Guns and Gangs: In May 2023, the Minister of Public Safety committed $390.6 million over five years in funding directly to provinces and territories to help support a variety of initiatives to reduce gun crime and criminal gang activities. This funding builds on the initial $358.8 million invested into the Initiative to Take Action Against Gun and Gang Violence, first announced in 2017.

Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate: Budget 2024 launched Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate (CAPCH) and proposed $273.6 million over six years, and $29.3 million ongoing to respond to the significant increase in hate targeting Indigenous people, Black and other racialized, ethno-religious minority, 2SLGBTQI+ communities and persons with disabilities. CAPCH will bring together government initiatives to empower communities to prevent and counter extreme forms of hate-motivated violence including ideologically motivated violent extremism, to support affected victims and communities, to build community trust, partnerships, and institutional readiness, and to build understanding and awareness of the effects of hate.

As part of the CAPCH funding, Justice Canada has been allocated $28 million over six years, starting in 2024-25, for the Federal Victims Strategy to provide support to victims following a hate-motivated crime, and $1.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, for the development and delivery of specialized training to Crown prosecutors and to raise awareness in the judiciary about the unique dynamics of hate crime.

Intimate Partner Violence: Through Budget 2022, $539.3 million in funding over five years, starting in 2022-23, was provided to Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) to enable provinces and territories to supplement and enhance services and supports within their jurisdictions to prevent GBV and support survivors through the GBV NAP. WAGE has worked with each province and territory to put in place bilateral agreements supporting the implementation of the GBV NAP. The agreements are flexible to enable jurisdictions to address their respective priorities, needs and challenges.

Victims of Crime

The Government of Canada is committed to providing meaningful support to victims and survivors of crime, including victims of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence.

• Justice Canada has led the Federal Victims Strategy since 2007. This strategy seeks to improve the experience of victims and survivors of crime by giving them a more effective voice in the criminal justice system.
• Through the Federal Victims Strategy, our government makes significant policy, program, and legislative contributions aimed at addressing ongoing and emerging victim issues, increasing access to meaningful services for victims and leading criminal law reform.
• Recent studies and reports, such as those by the Mass Casualty Commission and the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime, have made recommendations on how to better respond to the needs of victims, which we are taking very seriously.
• Question: How will the Department of Justice support victims of hate under Canada’s Action Plan to Combat Hate?
  • Budget 2024 proposed $273.6 million over six years, and $29.3 million ongoing, for Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate to support community outreach and law enforcement reform, tackle the rise in hate crimes, enhance community security, counter radicalization, and increase support for victims.
  • This includes $28 million over six years to Justice Canada for the Federal Victims Strategy to provide support to victims following a hate-motivated crime, and $1.5 million over five years for the development and delivery of specialized training to Crown prosecutors and to raise awareness in the judiciary about the unique dynamics of hate crime.
  • In addition, we recently introduced Bill C-63, which includes proposals to amend the Criminal Code to:
    • Enact a new hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on grounds such as race, religion or sexual orientation;
    • Enact a new peace bond designed to prevent the carrying out of any hate propaganda offence or hate crime;
    • Increase penalties for the four existing hate propaganda offences; and
    • Define “hatred” for the hate propaganda offences and the proposed hate crime offence.
• Question: What actions has the Government taken to support victims of gender-based violence and intimate partner violence?
  • Our government recognizes that gender-based violence is a serious problem that requires concerted action.
  • In 2022, Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministers responsible for the Status of Women launched the National Action Plan to End Gender-based Violence.
  • That year, our Government allocated $539.3 million over 5 years to enable provinces and territories to prevent gender-based violence and support survivors through the National Action Plan.
  • In addition to programmatic initiatives, our Government has also made legislative changes to better support victims of gender-based violence, including intimate partner violence.
  • In 2019, Parliament passed changes we advanced to the Criminal Code to create a reverse onus at bail for accused persons charged with a violent offence involving an intimate partner if they have a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner.
  • In 2023, Parliament passed our legislation that made additional amendments to the bail provisions to expand the reverse onus for intimate partner violence so that it not only captures accused persons who have previously been convicted of an intimate partner violence offence, but also those who have previously been discharged of such an offence.
  • It also passed our legislation that allows anyone to apply for an emergency weapons prohibition order, also known as Red Flag laws, to help reduce gender-based, family, and intimate partner violence.

Background

Federal Victims Strategy

The Government continues to show commitment to protecting victims and survivors of crime. The Federal Victims Strategy (FVS) seeks to give victims and survivors of crime a more effective voice in the criminal justice system, including by ensuring that the perspectives of victims and survivors are taken into consideration when federal policies, programs, and legislation are developed.

The FVS has three main levers for enacting change for victims of crime: policy development, criminal law reform, and program development. The Victims Fund is a grants and contributions program that makes funding available to eligible recipients to support the development of new approaches, promote access to justice, improve the capacity of service providers, and/or increase awareness of services available to victims and survivors of crime and their families. In addition, through the Victims Fund, Justice Canada administers multi-year funding agreements with provinces and territories to support them in their responsibility for the administration of justice. Over $40 million was provided through the Victims Fund in 2023-2024 to support victim focussed measures across Canada.

Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate

Budget 2024 launched Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate (CAPCH) and proposed $273.6 million over six years, and $29.3 million ongoing to respond to the significant increase in hate targeting Indigenous people, Black and other racialized, ethno-religious minority, 2SLGBTQI+ communities and persons with disabilities. CAPCH will bring together government initiatives to empower communities to prevent and counter extreme forms of hate-motivated violence including ideologically motivated violent extremism, to support affected victims and communities, to build community trust, partnerships, and institutional readiness, and to build understanding and awareness of the effects of hate.

As part of the CAPCH funding, Justice Canada has been allocated $28 million over six years, starting in 2024-25, for the FVS to provide support to victims following a hate-motivated crime, and $1.5 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, for the development and delivery of specialized training to Crown prosecutors and to raise awareness in the judiciary about the unique dynamics of hate crime.

Bill C-63 (An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts), which was introduced in the House of Commons in February 2024, would create a new hate crime offence to explicitly denounce hateful conduct. It would apply to any offence in the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on listed grounds and would carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The bill proposes to enact a new peace bond that aims to prevent offences involving hate propaganda or hate crimes. It could be imposed for a period of up to 12 months, or two years, if the defendant has a past conviction for a hate propaganda offence or hate crime and would require the consent of the relevant (usually provincial) Attorney General. This is consistent with some of the existing peace bonds and more generally to Criminal Code proceedings involving most of the hate propaganda offences.

Bill C-63 proposes to increase the maximum punishments for all four hate propaganda offences, including advocating or promoting genocide. This change would provide parity with the crime of counselling someone to commit murder even if the murder is not committed, the punishment for which is life imprisonment. The three other hate propaganda offences would be increased to a maximum of five years imprisonment (up from 2 years) when prosecuted by way of indictment.

Finally, Bill C-63 would provide a definition of “hatred” for the hate propaganda offences and the proposed hate crime offence, based on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Gender-Based Violence

Combatting Gender-based violence (GBV) is a priority for the Government of Canada. Launched in November 2022 by Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministers responsible for the Status of Women, the National Action Plan to End GBV (GBV NAP) is a 10-year plan that sets a framework to create a Canada free of GBV – a Canada that supports victims, survivors, and their families from coast to coast to coast.

Through Budget 2022, funding of $539.3 million over five years, starting in 2022-23, was provided to Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE) to enable provinces and territories to supplement and enhance services and supports within their jurisdictions to prevent GBV and support survivors through the GBV NAP. WAGE has worked with each province and territory to put in place bilateral agreements supporting the implementation of the GBV NAP. The agreements are flexible to enable jurisdictions to address their respective priorities, needs and challenges.

In 2019, former Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, enacted amendments that strengthened criminal laws in the context of intimate partner violence (IPV), with the goal of enhancing victim safety. Among other things, this legislation:

• imposed a reverse onus at bail for accused charged with an IPV offence if they have a prior conviction for violence against an intimate partner;
• required courts to consider whether an accused is charged with an IPV offence when determining whether to release or detain them;
• clarified that strangulation, choking and suffocation constitute a more serious form of assault, and that strangling, suffocating, or choking a person while sexually assaulting them constitutes a more serious form of sexual assault; and
• allowed for the possibility of seeking a higher maximum penalty in cases involving a repeat IPV offender.

Bill C-21, An act to amend certain acts and to make consequential amendments (firearms), received Royal Assent on December 15, 2023. The bill amended the Criminal Code to enable anyone to make an application to a court for an emergency prohibition order to immediately remove firearms, for up to 30 days, from an individual who may pose a danger to themselves or others. The regime is meant to address situations where an individual poses a risk to themselves, their family or to public safety including perpetrators of intimate partner, gender based or other types of violence to temporarily remove a firearm from that person.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), received Royal Assent on December 5, 2023, and came into force on January 4, 2024. This bill makes targeted amendments to the bail provisions of the Criminal Code to enhance public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice. These amendments included an expansion of the reverse onus at bail for IPV so that it not only captures accused persons who have been previously convicted of an IPV offence, but also those who have previously been discharged of such an offence.

Advice to the Minister – Legal challenges to Quebec’s Bill 21

Quebec’s Bill 21, an Act respecting the laicity of the State, was enacted using the Charter’s notwithstanding clause (section 33). Parties challenging the Bill’s constitutionality are currently seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after the Quebec Court of Appeal largely upheld it.

• The parties challenging Bill 21 are seeking leave to appeal their cases to the Supreme Court of Canada. As we have said previously, if the Court agrees to hear an appeal, the Government of Canada will intervene.
• Any constitutional case before the Supreme Court of Canada by definition becomes a matter of national interest. This case touches on fundamental rights and freedoms, with broad implications for all Canadians.
• Our government has serious concerns with the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, section 33 of the Charter. The first word should not be the last in the dialogue between legislatures and the courts on the justifiability of limiting rights and freedoms.
• Question: Why is the federal government concerned with provincial use of the notwithstanding clause?
  • Answer: The Government of Canada is firmly committed to respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To date, the Government of Canada has never invoked the notwithstanding clause and believes it should only be used as a tool of last resort, if ever.
• Question: What will the Government of Canada argue before the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause?
  • Answer: The Government of Canada is firmly committed to respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. The Department of Justice has been closely monitoring the increased use of the notwithstanding clause by several provinces, and if the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear the appeal, we will be well-prepared to express our concerns before the Court.

Background

The notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) allows Parliament and provincial and territorial legislatures to declare, for up to five years at a time, that a statute will operate notwithstanding certain rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter, namely section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights).

Parliament has never used the notwithstanding clause. Since 2018, provinces have used the notwithstanding clause with increased frequency. In particular, the Ontario and New Brunswick governments proposed to use the notwithstanding clause for the first time in those provinces. The Quebec Act respecting the laicity of the State (Bill 21) and the Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec (Bill 96) are part of this trend, although Quebec has used the clause routinely since 1982.

The constitutionality of Quebec’s Bill 21 was challenged before the Superior Court of Quebec in Hak, which found that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legally valid. That decision was largely upheld by the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been sought. The Government of Canada has publicly declared its intention to intervene if the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal.

Advice to the Minister – Justice Canada Departmental Plan 2024-25

• This Departmental Plan provides details on the Department’s key priorities, expected results and related resource allocations for the 2024–25 fiscal year. We will report on these plans in the corresponding 2024–25 Departmental Results Report.
• I am very proud of our plans to support the Government of Canada and to ensure a more fair, accessible and relevant justice system for all Canadians.
• We will support work to keep Canadians safe in their communities and online. This includes addressing gender–based and intimate partner violence, as well as continuing to combat hate and serious forms of harmful online content.
• Justice Canada continues to support the work of reconciliation and a renewed relationship with First Nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as efforts to address the challenges of systemic racism and discrimination, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system.
• This work includes developing the Indigenous Justice Strategy with Indigenous partners in consultation with provinces and territories and an implementation plan for Canada’s Black Justice Strategy.
• Justice Canada is also part of the whole–of–government effort to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples at the federal level through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and the associated Action Plan.
• We will answer the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice, and implement the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ People National Action Plan and the related Federal Pathway.
• We will also continue to support the work of the Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools.

Background

Justice Canada’s 2024–25 Departmental Plan provides parliamentarians and Canadians with information on how the Department intends to use appropriations requested from Parliament, the expected results of those activities, and the planned resources required to achieve these results for the period from April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025.

The President of the Treasury Board tabled the 2024–25 Departmental Plans in Parliament, on behalf of ministerial colleagues, on February 29, 2024.

The following table shows information on planned spending for each of the Department of Justice Canada’s core responsibilities and for its internal services for 2024–25, 2025–26, and 2026–27.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page