4. Legislation

Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law)

Bill C-40 proposes to reform the miscarriage of justice review process in the Criminal Code and establish an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission to review, investigate and decide which cases should be returned to the justice system due to a potential miscarriage of justice.

Background

The legislative reforms proposed in Bill C-40, which was introduced on February 16, 2023, would allow the Government of Canada to implement its plan to establish a new commission, as an independent administrative body, to review miscarriage of justice applications. Bill C-40 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to, among other things:

  1. establish an independent body to be called the Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission;
  2. replace the review process set out in Part XXI.1 of the Criminal Code with a process in which applications for reviews of findings and verdicts on the grounds of miscarriage of justice are made to the Commission instead of to the Minister of Justice;
  3. confer on the Commission powers of investigation to carry out its functions;
  4. provide that the Commission may direct a new trial or hearing or refer a matter to the court of appeal if it has reasonable grounds to conclude that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so;
  5. authorize the Commission to provide supports to applicants in need and to provide the public, including potential applicants, with information about its mandate and miscarriages of justice; and
  6. require the Commission to make and publish policies and to present and publish annual reports that include demographic and performance measurement data.

Since the Bill was introduced, and particularly since the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights started its study on October 31, 2023, many interested stakeholders have expressed concerns about the need for adequate funding in order to ensure that the Commission will have the capacity to handle a higher volume of applications and make decisions faster than the current ministerial review process.

Budget 2023 provided $83.9 million over five years, starting in 2023-24, and $18.7 million ongoing for the independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission. The announced funding would allow for the full complement of commissioners to be appointed: a full-time Chief Commissioner and up to 8 part-time commissioners. The announced funding would also allow for significantly more staff, including case reviewers, compared to currently, as well as for programs such as outreach and supports to applicants in need.

An independent commission dedicated exclusively to miscarriage of justice reviews will help improve access to justice by making it easier and faster for potentially wrongfully convicted people to have their applications reviewed, including for Indigenous people, Black persons, and members of other racialized or marginalized populations. Addressing miscarriages of justice more quickly will help to mitigate the devastating impact they have on the convicted person, their family, victims, and the integrity of justice system. The Government of Canada is committed to reforming and improving Canada’s justice system to ensure that all Canadians have access to fair and just treatment before the law. Bill C-40 seeks to make progress on that commitment and, in doing so, increase public confidence in the justice system.

Bill C-63, An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the 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

Bill C-63 proposes to hold social media services accountable for addressing harmful content on their platforms and for creating a safer online space that protects all people in Canada, especially children.

Background

Bill C-63

On February 26, 2024, you tabled Bill C-63 in Parliament, which will enact the new Online Harms Act and amend the Criminal Code, Canadian Human Rights Act and the Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service (Mandatory Reporting Act). The main goal is to make the online environment a more inclusive and safer place for Canadians.

Under the new Online Harms Act, social media services would be required to ensure that tools and processes are in place to make the Internet a safer place for Canadians. It is essential that the most vulnerable Canadians, including children and equity-deserving groups are protected online and have a safe space to express themselves and communicate with others.

The Online Harms Act aims to enhance online safety by reducing the exposure to harmful content on social media services, with a special emphasis on protecting children. This is in line with risk-based or duty of care approaches that jurisdictions like the UK, Australia and the EU have adopted.

The Act would apply to social media services, which includes user-uploaded adult content services and live-streaming services, but does not include private messaging.

The Act defines 7 categories of harmful content, which would be regulated:

  1. Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor
  2. Content used to bully a child;
  3. Content that induces a child to harm themselves.
  4. Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism
  5. Content that incites violence
  6. Content that foments hatred
  7. Intimate content communicated without consent, which includes deepfakes of intimate images

Obligations for regulated entities

The Act sets out 3 duties that platforms will need to adhere to:

  1. Duty to Act Responsibly
    • Regulated services would need to implement measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk of exposure to harmful content on the service
    • Provide users with user empowerment tools including the ability to flag content or block other users
    • Submitting Digital Safety Plans; disclosing any analysis of new risks or trends related to online safety; and provide anonymized data sets to qualified researchers
  2. Duty to Protect Children
    • Regulated services would need to integrate design features to protect children, such as age-appropriate design features as we have seen in the UK.
  3. Duty to Make Certain Content Inaccessible
    • Regulated services would need to remove two types of content within 24 hours of becoming aware of it, pending final decision – Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; and Intimate content communicated without consent

New machinery and subsequent funding implications

The Online Harms Act would create a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada to oversee and enforce the Act; a Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada to advocate for and support victims and a Digital Safety Office of Canada which supports both administratively.

The Digital Safety Commission would carry out its mandate by, among other things: enforcing legislative and regulatory obligations and holding online services accountable for their responsibilities under the Online Harms Act through auditing for compliance, issuing compliance orders, and penalizing services that fail to comply; intaking, triaging and administering user complaints and reports about services’ obligations under all three duties; and, enforcing the removal of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent.

The Digital Safety Ombudsperson would act as a point of contact and a resource for users and victims and would advocate for users’ needs and interests on systemic issues regarding online safety. Appointed on a five-year term, the Ombudsperson would: gather information from users on an ongoing basis, and issue calls for written submissions to solicit views on specific issues; conduct consultations with users and victims; direct users to proper resources such as law enforcement or help lines; and develop advice, publish public reports and advocate for users to the Commission, the Government, and social media services calling attention to frequent, severe, or systemic issues from a user perspective.

The Digital Safety Office’s mandate would be to support the operations of both the Commission and the Ombudsperson.

The Department of Canadian Heritage would be responsible for supporting the standing up of this new machinery. Funding would be required for the new regulatory machinery once the new legislation comes into force and the Chief Executive Officer of the Office is appointed and receives its financial authorities from Treasury Board.

Budget 2024

Budget 2024 proposes to provide $52 million over five years, starting in 2024-25, with $2.1 million in remaining amortization, to Canadian Heritage and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to protect children, and all Canadians, by subjecting large online platforms to a duty to act responsibly, ensuring that the platforms are reducing user’s exposure to harmful content online and by creating a Digital Safety Commission to ensure this duty is being adequately met. The Government will also establish a Digital Safety Ombudsperson to be a resource and advocate for users and victims of online harm.

Budget 2024 also proposes to provide $2.5 million in 2024-25 to Public Safety Canada to support the important work of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in preventing and responding to online child sexual exploitation, of which $1.5 million will be sourced from existing resources.

Amendments to other legislation

This Bill also makes important changes to three other Acts, which contributes to the goal of protecting of people in Canada, including the most vulnerable:

  1. Amendments to the Criminal Code
    • Creating a new hate crime that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament; increasing the maximum penalties for the four existing hate propaganda offences; creating a new peace bond designed to prevent hate propaganda offences and hate crimes; and a definition of hatred based on the existing Canadian case law (focusing on “detestation or vilification”) would be added.
  2. Canadian Human Rights Act
    • Amendments would define a new discriminatory practice of communicating hate speech online; empower people to file complaints against the person posting the hate speech to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
  3. Amendments to the Mandatory Reporting Act.
    • Clarifying that the Act applies to all types of Internet services, including social media services and other application-based services; improving coordination of reporting by creating authority to centralize mandatory reporting of child pornography offences to the police; assisting law enforcement and prosecutors by extending data preservation, and requiring that services send transmission data to police with respect to content that is manifestly child pornography; and providing authority for annual reports..

The Government will commit to ensure that resources are provided to the federal organizations impacted by the Bill (in particular the Canadan Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal / Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada) so it could be implemented as presented

Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, No. 1

Bill C-69 proposes measures to address the rise in motor vehicle thefts, to strengthen Canada’s anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime, and crack down on predatory lending by enhancing enforcement of the criminal interest rate. Bill C-69 also proposes to repurpose 17 previously authorized unified family court salaries to trial pool positions that may be allocated to the superior trial courts in any Canadian jurisdiction. In addition, the Bill proposes to allow corporations, and other taxpayers who are not individuals, to be represented in the Tax Court’s General Procedure by a non-lawyer within their organization, in special circumstances.

Auto Theft

Money Laundering

Criminal Interest Rate

Judicial Resources Repurposing (UFC to Trial Pool positions)

Corporate representation in Tax Court

Overarching Q&A

Auto Theft Q&A

Money Laundering Q&A

Criminal Interest Rate Q&A

Judicial Resources Repurposing Q&A

Corporate representation in Tax Court Q&A

Background

Auto-Theft

The auto theft amendments have five components:

  1. Two new motor vehicle theft offences for circumstances where i) violence was used, threatened, or attempted against any person, and ii) where the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.
  2. Two new offences targeting possession and distribution respectively of certain electronic devices that are suitable for committing motor vehicle theft, where the possession or distribution is for the purpose of committing such theft.
  3. A new offence of laundering the proceeds of crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. These new offences would carry significant maximum penalties ranging from 10 to 14 years imprisonment.
  4. A new aggravating factor applicable at sentencing where there is evidence that the offender involved a person under the age of 18 in the commission of an offence.
  5. Additional investigative tools, such as including authorizations for wiretaps and the taking of DNA (on conviction) as well as consequential amendments related to the investigation and prosecution of these new offences.

Auto theft has been reported in the media as a crisis occurring across Canada. Provinces, territories, and large urban centres have identified this trend as a growing threat to public safety, due to the reported increase in carjackings and home invasions related to auto theft. You committed to strengthening legislative responses to auto theft, and the proposed changes reflect that.

Due to the escalating calls for federal action, the Government held a Federal National Summit on Auto Theft on February 8, 2024 in Ottawa. The Federal Summit successfully brought together governments, police, industry and stakeholders to ensure a continued coordinated and collaborative approach to combat auto theft. Participants at the Federal Summit expressed wanting to see swift action from this Government to tackle the rising issue of violent auto thefts and organized crime.

Money Laundering

Bill C-69 proposes two new measures in the production and preservation orders provisions of the Criminal Code:

These measures complement and build on measures announced in the Fall Economic Statement to support the investigation and prosecution of the offence of laundering proceeds of crime and the preservation of proceeds of crime for forfeiture following conviction, and consultations that were undertaken in Summer 2023 regarding measures to strengthen the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing regime.

The consultations in Summer 2023 indicated that, with regards to the Criminal Code, stakeholders were generally satisfied with the criminal offences for laundering proceeds of crime and related financial crimes. Some stakeholders supported increasing the maximum sentence for laundering proceeds of crime to increase deterrence while others observed that increasing sentences has not been shown to be an effective deterrent. Many respondents recognized the need for Criminal Code reforms to enhance the investigatory tools available to law enforcement provided that these included safeguards to protect privacy rights. A legal framework for an order to keep financial accounts open to facilitate investigations generated a significant level of interest, with most stakeholders expressing support provided that legislative reforms prescribed parameters including timeframes, protections against liability, and court oversight.

Criminal Interest Rate

There are two principal changes in this bill to the criminal interest rate provisions in the Criminal Code:

In Budget 2023, the federal government proposed to lower the criminal interest rate from 60 per cent effective annual rate (EAR) to 35 per cent annual percentage rate (APR) and to impose a cap on payday loans. Subsequently, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 made amendments to lower the criminal rate, introduce regulation making authorities to provide for exemptions to the criminal rate and to provide a cap on payday loans. These changes will come into force on a day, or days set by the Governor in Council.

Budget 2023 also announced that the government would consult on further lowering the criminal interest rate and additional revisions to the Criminal Code’s provincial/territorial payday lending exemption. Through these consultations, held in 2023, stakeholders, including consumer groups, provincial regulators, and subprime lenders, expressed the view that the criminal interest rate offence was not being adequately enforced, and that structural and procedural barriers are hindering law enforcement’s ability to effectively enforce the offence.

Currently, section 347 of the Criminal Code requires that a borrower have entered into an agreement or arrangement to pay interest at a criminal rate, or that a party be in receipt of payment, or partial payment, of interest at a criminal rate. The offence does not specifically address offering or advertising credit at a criminal interest rate prior to a borrower paying interest at a criminal rate or entering into an agreement or arrangement to do so. To address this barrier to enforcement, the proposed amendments in Budget 2024 would broaden this offence to include such offers and advertisements.

Likewise, stakeholders cited the requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General prior to commencing proceedings related to the criminal interest rate as a procedural barrier to prosecute the offence. This requirement is found in subsection 347(7) of the Criminal Code. A wide range of stakeholders have advocated for the removal of the requirement.

Judicial Resources Repurpose (UFC to Trial Pool)

Division 29 of Part 4 amend the Judges Act to repurpose 17 previously approved unified family court positions to trial pool positions. This means that it would decrease the number of judicial salaries that may be paid under paragraph 24(4) of the Judges Act from 75 to 58 but would increase the number of judicial salaries that may be paid under paragraph 24(3)(b) from 62 to 79. These judicial positions will respond to existing and projected workload pressures and assist the courts in dealing with their caseloads in a timely manner.

Corporate Representation in Tax Court

The costs of legal representation, particularly in the field of tax law, can affect a taxpayer’s choice to challenge a notice of assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue before the Tax Court. Requiring corporations or other entities to be represented by a lawyer must remain the rule before the Tax Court to ensure the efficient administration of justice. However, the proposed amendment will give the Tax Court some discretion to allow non-lawyer representation and strike a balance between access to justice and the efficient administration of court proceedings. This measure will align the powers of the Tax Court with those of the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal as they relate to legal representation.

Division 30 of Part 4 amends section 17.1 of the Tax Court of Canada Act by clarifying that only an individual who is a party to a proceeding under the General Procedure of the Tax Court has a right to appear in person, and adding a provision to specify that the Tax Court may, under special circumstances, grant leave to a party that is not an individual to be represented before the Court by someone who is not a lawyer but who is a director, officer, employee, member or partner of the party.

Foreign Interference

The Government of Canada recently introduced legislation to both deter and counter foreign interference and improve the ways in which intelligence is protected and used in certain legal proceedings through amendments to the Security of Information Act, the Criminal Code, and the Canada Evidence Act.

Background

Context

Foreign Interference is an ongoing threat to Canada’s security. Canadians with family ties to foreign states are subject to transnational repression and other efforts undertaken by foreign states or their proxies to intimidate, silence, forcibly or coercively repatriate or harm individuals. Canadian democratic institutions are targeted as states attempt to advance their own political interests, undermine public trust, and seek to gain influence over political, business and community leaders. Foreign states seek to sow divisions, undermine social cohesion, and influence public opinion using coercion and disinformation.

Provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous governments and their stakeholders are also targeted by state actors and their proxies and are less well equipped to counter foreign interference due to their limited access to federal intelligence assessments.

Technology enables and accelerates the threats, especially online, by creating new avenues for foreign states to spread disinformation, siphon the personal information of Canadians and influence public discourse. Secure applications like virtual private networks and end-to-end encryption make threat actors difficult to detect and identify.

Public Consultation

On November 24, 2023, the Department of Justice Canada (Justice) launched a public consultation paper to solicit views on potential reforms to the Security of Information Act (SOIA), the Criminal Code, and the Canada Evidence Act (CEA). The consultation process consisted of two streams: an online consultation that solicited feedback from everyone in Canada; and a series of virtual and in-person roundtable discussions (41 in total) with provincial, territorial, and Indigenous partners, as well as various stakeholders including representatives of diverse communities across Canada, the legal profession, academia, civil society organizations, and industry. The online consultation ended on February 2, 2024, while the roundtable discussions concluded in mid-February 2024.

35 of the roundtables were conducted jointly with Public Safety Canada (PS) and the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), who also consulted on reforms to the CSIS Act. Justice also held six Justice-only roundtables that were tailored to the Justice proposals, including with business and industry groups, legal professionals, and academics. Online consultations yielded 76 submissions (approximatively 47% were anonymous).

In addition to the roundtable discussions held with Indigenous partners, Justice also sent a notification of the proposed reforms to approximately 70 Modern Treaty and Self-Government partners and Indigenous organizations and invited all partners to meet and/or make submissions.

On April 25, 2024, Justice published a What We Heard Report that provides an overview of the information received during the consultation on the proposed reforms to the SOIA, Criminal Code and CEA. On the same day, CSIS released a What We Heard and Learned Report following separate consultations that were held on amendments to the CSIS Act. Previously, in November 2023, PS released a What We Heard Report after having consulted Canadians on the merits of a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry.

Justice found that there was overall support for the new proposed foreign interference offences under the SOIA and a strengthened maximum penalty for preparatory acts in the SOIA and its expanded application to other SOIA offences; and a modernized sabotage offence under the Criminal Code. With regards to proposals to reform the CEA, there was general support for the creation of the Secure Administrative Review Proceedings for administrative proceedings, which will standardize regimes that already exist in certain statutes. Moreover, the addition of the role of special counsel to this regime was a welcomed improvement to these types of proceedings and will result in increased fairness. Beyond legislative reforms, Justice heard the call for the Government to better engage and communicate with the public on foreign interference, notably with diverse communities across Canada.

Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference

On May 6, 2024, Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference, was introduced in the House of Commons. The proposed legislation, introduced to both deter and counter foreign interference and improve the ways in which intelligence is protected and used in certain legal proceedings, would create new offences and update existing offences in the SOIA, modernize the offence of sabotage in the Criminal Code, and create a new legal process in the CEA for how sensitive information is both protected and used in certain legal proceedings.

Bill C-70 has four parts. Part 1 proposes amendments to the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act.

Part 2 proposes amendments to the SOIA to, among other things, rename the Act to Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act (FISI Act).

It also proposes amendments to the SOIA to create new foreign interference offences, such as committing an indictable offence at the direction of, for the benefit of, or in association with a foreign entity, as well as engaging in surreptitious or deceptive conduct, at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with a foreign entity for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the “State” or being reckless as to whether the conduct is likely to harm Canadian interests, or with the intent to influence, among other things, the exercise of a democratic right in Canada.

It also proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to, among other things, broaden the scope of the sabotage offence to include certain acts done in relation to essential infrastructures and ensure that certain provisions respecting the interception of “private communications” as defined in that Act apply to certain offences in the SOIA.

Part 3 proposes amendments to the CEA to, among other things, create a general scheme to deal with sensitive information in the course of administrative proceedings that are in the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal. It also proposes to restrict, in the criminal context, interlocutory appeals of a s. 37 or s. 38 CEA disclosure order by an accused until after the person has been convicted of the offence, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying an earlier appeal. The purpose of this proposal is to address concerns about trial delay and interruption and would help with court efficiency and resources, by ensuring that appeals are not launched by defendants unless there is a criminal conviction.

It also proposes to add references to international relations, national defence, and national security in the sealing of orders provision of the Criminal Code, as well as references to international relations and national defence in certain provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that relate to the protection of information.

Finally, Part 4 proposes to enact the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act (FITA Act), which would provide for the appointment of an individual to be known as the Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner and would require certain persons to provide the Commissioner with certain information if they enter into arrangements with foreign principals under which they undertake to carry out certain activities in relation to political or governmental processes in Canada. It would also require the Commissioner to establish and maintain a publicly accessible registry that contains information about those arrangements it would provide the Commissioner with tools to administer and enforce the FITA Act.

Bill S-11, A Fourth Act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of Quebec and to amend certain Acts in order to ensure that each language version takes into account the common law and the civil law (Harmonization)

The Fourth omnibus harmonization bill, passed by the Senate and introduced in the House of Commons on February 7, 2023, aims to harmonize federal legislation with the private law of the provinces and territories in order for each linguistic version to take into account civil law and common law.

Background

Bill S-11, the fourth omnibus harmonization bill, is a result of the harmonization initiative established by the Department of Justice (DOJ) following the coming into force of the Civil Code of Québec (C.c.Q.) in 1994. In 1995, the DOJ adopted a departmental policy that aims to provide Canadians with access to federal legislative texts that, when dealing with private law issues, reflect, in both official languages, the legal system that applies to them. Since 1998, the DOJ has harmonized federal legislation with the private law of the provinces and territories, in particular with the civil law of Quebec. To date, three omnibus harmonization bills have been adopted (2001, 2004 and 2011).

Harmonization has its basis in Canadian bijuralism. Bijuralism is one of the manifestations of Canadian pluralism and the expression of the coexistence of the civil law and common law in Canada. Subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives rise to this co-existence by giving the provinces a broad residuary power over property and civil rights. Federal legislation also grants this power over property and civil rights to the territories.

The Fourth harmonization Bill proposes to amend 51 statutes that fall under the responsibility of the following nine departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, National Defence, Finance Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Justice Canada, Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat and Public Services and Procurement Canada.

The Fourth Bill proposes a number of harmonization amendments to the following four statutes that govern financial institutions: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act. It also proposes to harmonize a number of other statutes, including the Access to Information Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Interpretation Act, the Privacy Act and the Official Languages Act.

Finally, the Fourth Bill contains consequential harmonization amendments to three statutes, which are necessary in order to ensure consistency with the harmonization proposals to the four statutes that govern financial institutions.

The proposed amendments are technical in nature and are non-controversial. The resulting changes are terminological. These changes are not intended to alter the legislative policy underlying the provisions in question. Rather, they ensure that the policy behind these provisions is implemented in light of both the common law and the civil law, in both official languages.

A public consultation was held from February 1st to May 1st, 2017. A consultation document which included harmonization proposals was posted on the DOJ’s public consultations internet site for the duration of the consultation period. Interested Canadians were invited to comment. In accordance with the established practice, the consultation document was also sent to more than four hundred key stakeholders and members of the legal community, including: provincial and territorial Justice Ministers and their Deputy Ministers; Canadian associations of provincial and superior court judges; Canadian Judicial Council; provincial and territorial law societies; la Chambre des notaires du Québec; the Canadian Bar Association; associations of French language jurists outside Quebec; law professors and experts on civil law and comparative law; interested law practitioners; and financial institutions sector stakeholders.

Results from the public consultation have shown that the harmonization initiative continues to be favourably received by the legal community stakeholders and has confirmed that stakeholders support the proposed amendments included in the consultation document.

Bill S-11 was passed without amendment by the Senate on December 15, 2022. The Bill was also introduced in the House of Commons on February 7, 2023.

Bill S-13, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

Bill S-13 proposes to add a section 35 related non-derogation clause to the Interpretation Act, repeal most existing non-derogation clauses in other acts, and make coordinating amendments.

Background

Key dates in the parliamentary process so far include:

Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Bill

Bill to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology and errors and to deal with other matters of a noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes and Regulations of Canada and to repeal certain provisions that have expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.

Background

The current Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023, Bill-S17, was tabled in the Senate on March 19, 2024, and is currently at second reading in the Senate. This bill is the final part of the thirteenth Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment (MSLA) Program process. This initiative was established by the Department of Justice, with the approval of Cabinet in 1975 as a way to accelerate the adoption of minor amendments of a non-controversial nature to be made to federal legislation. Since the MSLA program was established, 12 MSLA Acts have been passed; the most recent in 2017.

The MSLA program is a periodic legislative exercise used to correct anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology or errors in federal statutes in one bill, instead of making such amendments in the context of a separate legislative initiative for each statute. To qualify, a proposed amendment must meet the following criteria:

These proposed amendments do not alter the legislative policy underlying the provisions in question. Rather, they ensure that the policy behind these provisions is clear and can be implemented correctly, without errors or confusion, in both official languages.

The legislative process for introducing an MSLA bill is different from the usual process. A document containing proposed amendments is tabled in Parliament for review by a committee of each House before the bill is introduced. The document containing the proposed amendments is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (LCJC) and to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (JUST). Those committees review the proposed amendments and present a report of their findings to their respective Houses. Since a proposed amendment must not be controversial, approval of a proposed amendment requires the consensus of the committee. Therefore, if a committee member objects to a proposed amendment, it will not be included in the MSLA bill. The bill is then drafted based on the reports of the committees.

The thirteenth MSLA bill would amend 58 statutes and 3 related regulations that fall under the responsibility of 19 ministers. The proposals document suggests amendments to modernize outdated terminology in many acts including: the Bank Act, the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Aeronautics Act. It would also correct the name of courts and tribunals in other statutes, including the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code, the Divorce Act, the Interpretation Act, and the Official Languages Act. Finally, the proposals document contains proposed amendments to address issues identified by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, to align the French and English text, to modernize language and to correct errors.

The Proposals document was tabled in the Senate on June 20, 2023, and has been studied by the LCJC. The LCJC tabled its Twenty-First Report on December 12, 2023, in which it excluded one proposal as it did not meet the non-controversial criteria for the MSLA program, and three others were withdrawn from the process as they were included in other legislative initiatives.

The Proposals document was also tabled in the House of Commons on June 16, 2023, and was studied by the JUST Committee. The Committee’s Twenty-First report tabled on February 12, 2024, also rejected four proposals because the non-controversial criteria of the program had not been met. The remaining proposals that were approved by both committees were drafted into a bill. Bill S-17 is currently at second reading in the Senate.

Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic material)

Bill C-270 proposes to create two new Criminal Code offences that would criminalize making, distributing or advertising pornographic material for commercial purposes without first verifying the age and consent of those depicted in such material.

Background

Private Member’s Bill C-270, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic material), was introduced on April 28, 2022, by Arnold Viersen, Member of Parliament for Peace River–Westlock. The bill was previously introduced as Bill C-302 (also sponsored by Mr. Viersen), which died on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021. Bill C-270 has been referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for study. The sponsor’s stated objective is to implement Recommendation #2 of the 2021 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI Committee), entitled Ensuring the Protection of Privacy and Reputation on Platforms such as Pornhub. That recommendation provides that the Government mandate that “content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution”.

Bill C-270 proposes to create two new Criminal Code hybrid offences, which would apply to organizations and individuals, and would prohibit making, distributing, or advertising pornographic material for commercial purposes without first verifying the age of those depicted in that material by examining legal documentation, or obtaining their prior written consent. It also proposes to provide the Governor in Council with regulation-making authority prescribing the records that must be kept by anyone who makes, distributes, or advertises pornographic material. Other changes proposed by Bill C-270 include limitations on the availability of the defence of mistaken belief in age, new aggravating factors, an evidentiary presumption in relation to corporations, and a new prohibition order that would apply to offenders.

The Criminal Code contains a robust legislative framework governing sexual exploitation, including offences that prohibit child pornography (section 163.1), non-consensual distribution of intimate images (section 162.1), voyeurism (section 162), obscenity (section 163), and human trafficking (sections 279.01 to 279.03). The Criminal Code also authorizes courts to order the takedown or removal of non-consensual intimate images and child pornography (sections 164 and 164.1). The Act Respecting the Mandatory Reporting of Internet Child Pornography by Persons who Provide an Internet Service (the Mandatory Reporting Act), enacted in 2011, requires Internet service providers to make a report to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection when they are advised that child pornography may be available through their services or to the police when they have reasonable grounds to believe that their services are being used to commit a child pornography offence.

On February 26, 2024, the Government introduced 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. The bill’s proposed Online Harms Act, would create a new regulatory framework that would require social media services, including user-uploaded adult content services and live-streaming services, to reduce the risk of exposure to harmful content online. This includes a “duty to make certain content inaccessible”, which would require social media services to make intimate content communicated without consent and content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, including child sexual abuse material, inaccessible on their services within 24 hours. The Act would also make certain tools available, such as tools to flag harmful content, which would empower users’ experience and safety online. Bill C-63 would also create a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada to administer this regulatory framework and the position of a Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada to advocate for and support victims.

Through amendments to the Mandatory Reporting Act, Bill C-63 would also improve the investigation of child pornography, also known as child sexual abuse material, cases. These amendments would include clarifying that the Act applies to all types of Internet services in Canada, including social media services and other application-based services, and changing the limitation period for prosecution of Internet service providers who fail to comply with their obligations from 2 years to 5 years.

Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Corinne’s quest and the protection of children)

Bill C-273 proposes to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence to criminal liability for parents, persons standing in the place of parents, and teachers, who use corrective force toward a child.

Background

Private Member’s Bill C-273 was introduced on May 19, 2022, by Peter Julian (NDP, New Westminster – Burnaby) and proposes to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code which provides a limited defence to criminal liability for parents, persons standing in the place of parents, and schoolteachers, when using reasonable corrective force toward a child. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concluded its study of the bill on May 2, 2024 and amended the Bill to add a coming into force clause that would provide the repeal of section 43 30 days after the day the bill receives Royal Assent. During the Committee’s study of the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice signalled your commitment to advancing legislation in the future to address concerns raised by teachers during Committee study of the Bill and in a manner that reflected the spirit of testimony received.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in its 2004 decision, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), found that section 43 was consistent with sections 7 (life, liberty and security of the person), 12 (cruel and unusual treatment or punishment) and 15 (equality) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the SCC clarified that section 43 applies only to “minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature” and that corporal punishment is permitted only by parents and under specific circumstances (e.g., educative or corrective purpose, no use of objects or strike to the head). For teachers, section 43 would only capture reasonable uses of force that would allow them to remove a child from a classroom or secure compliance with instructions. Corporal punishment by teachers is never permitted.

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its final report, which provides a detailed account of the history of physical and sexual abuse inflicted on Indigenous children by teachers and caregivers in residential schools. Calls to Action 6 calls for the repeal of section 43 noting that “corporal punishment is still legally permissible in schools and elsewhere under Canadian law”.

Some international organizations have also called for the repeal of section 43. On June 9, 2022, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended in their Concluding Observations, as it had done in 1995, 2003 and 2012, that Canada repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. Since the SCC’s decision in 2004, the UN Committee has identified corporal punishment as a form of violence, calling its elimination “a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies” (General Comment No. 8, 2006).

A growing number of countries (65 in total as of June 2023) have removed or reformed legislative provisions similar to section 43 of the Criminal Code in order to prohibit corporal punishment, including countries with broad assault laws (e.g., Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, New Zealand). Evidence suggests that prohibiting corporal punishment has widespread attitude and behavioural changes, particularly when these reforms are accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns and interventions. For example, in New Zealand support for corporal punishment dropped significantly during the period after the law change (D’Souza et al., 2016).

Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Bill C-291 proposes to change the term “child pornography” in the Criminal Code and other federal laws to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.”

Background

Bill C-291 was introduced on June 17, 2022 by Mel Arnold (CPC, North Okanagan – Shuswap). The bill originally proposed to replace the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material” in the Criminal Code, and in other federal laws, including An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide and Internet service.

The bill was amended in the Standing Joint Committee on Justice and Human Rights with 3 main government amendments to the bill:

Canada’s legislative framework

Canada’s child pornography provisions, currently contained mainly in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, were originally enacted in 1993 and have been amended periodically, including to expand the scope of the definition of child pornography and to increase the penalties for such offences. Canada’s definition of child pornography offers some of the broadest protections in the world for children (anyone under the age of 18 years) as it includes depictions of actual children, as well as persons depicted as children and cartoons and drawings. The definition also captures written and audio forms of child pornography, that either advocates sexual activity with children or whose dominant characteristic is the description, for a sexual purpose, of sexual activity with a child.

International

Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention) requires State Parties to protect children against all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This is elaborated on by the Convention’s Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which, among other things, requires States Parties to criminalize producing, distributing, disseminating, importing, exporting, offering, selling, or possessing child pornography for the purposes set forth in the Protocol. Canada ratified the Convention on December 13, 1991, and the Optional Protocol on September 14, 2005.

There has been an increasing number of calls both at the domestic and international levels to replace the term “child pornography” with a term that describes the true nature of the material to avoid equating the material to legal “pornography” that is not prohibited in most countries when it involves adults and does not constitute obscene material. However, as recognized in the 2016 Terminology Guidelines for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (the “Luxembourg Guidelines”), the term “child pornography” “is firmly anchored in international legal instruments adopted in the 21st century” which “has contributed to the use of the term also in domestic legislation”.

Both the United Kingdom and Australia, who are State Parties to the Optional Protocol, do not use “child pornography” in their domestic legislation: the United Kingdom uses the term “indecent photographs” (which is less descriptive than the current or proposed terms) and Australia uses the term “child abuse material.”

The term “child sexual exploitation and abuse” was the term used in the Voluntary Principles to Counter Online Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, which were published by the Five Country Ministerial in 2020, and that have since been endorsed by nineteen companies (as of August, 2023), and the G7 Interior Ministers.

Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)

Bill C-295 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create: (1) an offence applicable to owners and officers of long-term care facilities who fail to ensure necessaries of life are provided to residents of the facilities, (2) a prohibition order for these same people (imposed at sentencing), preventing them from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards vulnerable adults and (3) an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing for organizations who failed to perform any legal duty that was owed to a vulnerable adult.

Background

Private Member’s Bill C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults), was introduced in the House of Commons on June 20, 2022, by Hedy Fry (LPC, Vancouver Centre). The bill is awaiting second reading in the Senate and underwent a number of amendments in the House of Commons, which the Government supported. Its aim is to better protect vulnerable people in long-term care facilities.

The bill would add a class of persons under section 215 of the Criminal Code (duties to provide necessaries of life) specifically targeting owners or officers of long-term care (LTC) facilities who fail to provide necessaries of life to their residents. A failure to fulfil these duties would be a criminal offence.

A discretionary prohibition order would also be created so that a judge, at the sentencing stage, could impose a period of prohibition on the owner or officer guilty of this new offence from seeking, accepting, or retaining employment or volunteer work where they would be responsible for a vulnerable adult. Terms regarding duration and subsequent amendments would also be part of the bill, as would a provision regarding the penalty for breaching such an order. This measure is intended to prevent further action by those convicted of crimes and would further protect the vulnerable population dependent on the care of others.

Bill C-295 would also add an aggravating factor at the sentencing stage for an organization that has failed to meet its legal obligation to a vulnerable adult. Contrary to the main purpose of the bill, which targets owners and officers of long-term care facilities, this proposal seeks to crack down on corporate entities, so that a judge would have to consider a heavier sentence in the face of the circumstances listed above.

Justice Canada Initiatives

The Federal Victims Strategy (FVS) is a horizontal initiative led by Justice Canada, which has the objective to give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. The Victims Fund, through the FVS, is available to provinces and territories, and non-governmental organizations to support projects that address the needs of victims and survivors of crime in the criminal justice system. The Victims Fund can support projects that meet the needs of senior victims.

The Justice Canada component of the federal Family Violence Initiative (FVI) provides project funding to support the development of models, strategies, and tools to improve the criminal justice system’s response to family violence, including senior abuse and neglect. The Justice FVI also addresses senior abuse by providing resources for the public, such as Elder Abuse is Wrong, a booklet for seniors who may be suffering from abuse by someone they know, such as an intimate partner, spouse, family member, or caregiver.

Long-Term Care (Funding)

Budget 2023 outlined the Government of Canada’s plan to provide almost $200 billion over 10 years to improve health care for Canadians. This amount includes $25 billion to advance shared health priorities through tailored bilateral agreements, building on the $7.8 billion that has yet to flow to provinces and territories from Budget 2017 commitment for LTC ($3 billion over five years), home and community care ($2.4 billion over four years), and mental health and substance use ($2.4 billion over four years). In addition, the new funding announced includes $1.7 billion over five years to support hourly wage increases for personal support workers and related professions, as federal, provincial, and territorial governments work together on how best to support recruitment and retention.

Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)

Bill C-321 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider, as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, the fact that the victim of an assault is a health care professional or first responder who was acting in the performance of their duties.

Background

Bill C-321 was introduced on March 9, 2023, by Todd Doherty (CPC, Cariboo–Prince George), and is currently awaiting second reading in the Senate after being passed by the House of Commons with amendments advanced by the Government.

The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to add a new provision, section 269.02, that would require a sentencing court to consider, as an aggravating factor, the fact that the victim is a health care professional or first responder who was acting in the performance of their duties at the time the offence occurred. The aggravating factor would apply to the following offences: uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (subparagraph 264.1(1)(a)); assault (section 266); assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm (section 267); aggravated assault (subsection 268(1)); and unlawfully causing bodily harm (section 269).

Reported incidents of violence against health care workers have increased in recent years, including as a result of public health measures during the pandemic. During the 2021 federal election campaign, the Prime Minister committed to enhance protections for health care workers and ensure everyone has safe and unobstructed access to health care. As a result, the Government introduced Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, which received Royal Assent on December 17, 2021. Bill C-3 amended the Criminal Code, to add as an aggravating factor, evidence that the offence was committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services (subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2)).

Bill C-321 is consistent with the sentencing provisions enacted under Bill C-3. However, the proposed aggravating factor in Bill C-321 differs from the aggravating factor at subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2) in respect of the persons and activities it captures. Subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2) applies to any offence committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties, was providing health services. This protection extends beyond health care workers such as doctors, nurses, and personal support workers, to any person providing health services, which would include first responders such as firefighters and paramedics insofar as they are providing health services. The proposed change in Bill C-321 would apply only to the enumerated assault provisions and as drafted, only applies to health care workers and first responders. However, the proposed aggravating factor would capture a broader range of activities than subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.2), as it would apply where the first responder or health care worker was performing any duty, not just to cases where the victim was providing health services at the time of the offence.

During clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-321, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights adopted the Government’s amendment to change “health care worker” to “person providing health services, including personal care services”. This amendment ensures that the provision applies to as broad a group of individuals as possible and that the protections provided by this amendment would be consistent with those found in paragraph 718.2(a)(iii.2).

A definition of “first responder” does not currently exist in the Criminal Code and introducing a definition could result in the exclusion of certain occupations that could qualify as first responders, such as correctional officers and transit workers. Courts have generally given a broad interpretation to the term to include personnel beyond those traditionally considered to be first responders.

Bill C-332, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of intimate partner)

Bill C-332 proposes to create a new Criminal Code coercive control in intimate relationships offence.

Background

The term “coercive control”, or “coercive and controlling behaviour”, has been used in both family and criminal law contexts to describe a pattern of controlling behaviour that takes place over time in the context of intimate relationships, and serves to “entrap” victims, eliminating their sense of freedom in the relationship. A broad range of controlling conduct may be employed, some of which may constitute criminal offences in and of themselves, such as assault or uttering threats, but the focus is on how a pattern of such conduct serves to subjugate rather than the individual incidents in which abusers exercise control; coercive control is concerned with the cumulative impact of the abuser’s conduct on the victim. Coercive control offences have been enacted in the England and Wales (2015), Scotland (2018), Ireland (2019), New South Wales (2022) and Queensland (2024).

Recent studies and reports have considered the possibility of enacting a coercive control offence, including: the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights’ (Justice Committee) study, which resulted in its 2021 report entitled, Controlling or Coercive Conduct in Intimate Relationships; the Ontario Coroner’s Inquest into the murders of Carol Culleton, Anastasia Kuzyk, and Nathalie Warmerdam, which released the jury inquest’s recommendations in 2022; and, the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC), which released its final report in 2023. These reports noted that extreme violence toward intimate partners, including what they termed “femicide”, is almost always preceded by an ongoing pattern of coercive and controlling conduct, now considered to be a pervasive form of intimate partner violence. Accordingly, these reports included recommendations to either further study the possibility of enacting a Criminal Code coercive control offence (MCC and the Justice Committee) or to enact such an offence (Ontario Coroner’s Inquest).

Justice Canada officials have been studying the development of a coercive control offence with provincial and territorial (PT) partners, and led a stakeholder engagement process, in close collaboration with the PT’s. In September and October 2023, FPT officials heard a range of diverse opinions from gender-based violence advocates, front-line service providers, academics, and those with lived experience, including from those who support, and those who do not support, a coercive control offence. Some have expressed concern that the offence could have unintentional negative impacts on victims, including because abusers could accuse victims of committing the offence. The bill, as amended, seeks to address these concerns, including by requiring criminal justice practitioners to consider the nature of the relationship between the accused and the victim, and whether the victim is in a position of vulnerability in relation to the accused.

On March 18, 2024, the Justice Committee adopted Government amendments to Private Member’s Bill C-332, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of intimate partner), which was introduced on May 18, 2023, by MP Laurel Collins (NDP – Victoria), and the Chair of the Committee reported the Bill back to the House on March 22, 2024, as amended. The Bill proposes a coercive control offence that would prohibit engaging in a pattern of conduct with intent to cause the accused’s intimate partner to believe that their physical or psychological safety is threatened, or being reckless as to whether it could have that effect. The Government amendments were informed by:

Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (orders prohibiting the possession of weapons)

Bill C-376 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to make it mandatory for a judge to order a weapons prohibition order against an individual convicted of a violent indictable offence.

Background

Private Member’s Bill C-376, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (orders prohibiting the possession of weapons), was introduced on February 12, 2024, by Mr. Eric Melillo, (CPC, Kenora). The sponsor’s stated purpose for introducing this bill is to ensure that all individuals convicted of a violent indictable offence receive a mandatory weapons prohibition order, due to the increase in violent crime across the country. The projected date for second reading debate is June 4, 2024.

The bill proposes to amend paragraph 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to broaden its application by removing the requirement that the offence has a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years or more. This would mean a court would be required to issue a prohibition order for any indictable offence involving violence.

Currently, paragraph 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code provides that a court must impose a mandatory weapons prohibition order if an individual is convicted or discharged of offences involving violence (including threats and attempts) punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. Section 109 operates alongside section 110, which provides authority for a judge to make a discretionary prohibition order where a person is convicted or discharged of an offence not covered in paragraphs 109(1)(a) to (c.1) where violence against a person was used, threatened, or attempted.

Section 113 of the Criminal Code provides a limited exception to a weapons prohibition order. It allows a judge to authorize the Chief Firearms Officer of jurisdiction to issue a conditional licence to individuals subject to such orders, permitting them to possess non-restricted or restricted firearms for sustenance or employment purposes.

Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft)

Bill C-379 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to: 1) increase the mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment (MMP) for a third or subsequent conviction of motor vehicle theft under section 333.1 from 6 months to 3 years; 2) require sentencing courts to give primary consideration to the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization; and 3) make conditional sentence orders (CSOs) unavailable for motor vehicle theft prosecuted under section 333.1 by indictment.

Background

Private Member’s Bill C-379, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), was introduced on February 12, 2024, by Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) Member of Parliament (MP) Randy Hoback. The sponsor’s stated objective of the bill was to implement tougher penalties for repeat car thieves who are acting on behalf of organized crime. The first hour of Second Reading occurred on May 2, 2024.

Bill C-379 would amend the Criminal Code to: 1) increase the mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment (MMP) for a third or subsequent conviction of motor vehicle theft under section 333.1 from 6 months to 3 years; 2) require sentencing courts to give primary consideration to the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization; and 3) make conditional sentence orders (CSOs) unavailable for motor vehicle theft prosecuted under section 333.1 by indictment.

In Canada, a vehicle is stolen every five minutes and data suggests motor vehicle theft is becoming more prevalent. This challenge has been described as a national crisis. Statistics Canada reports that in 2022, 105,673 vehicles were stolen in Canada. Auto thefts rose by 48% in Ontario, by 50% in Quebec, by 18.3% in Alberta and by 34.5% in Atlantic Canada in 2022 compared to the previous year. In 2022, Ontario had 37,041 vehicle thefts, Quebec had 20,834 vehicle thefts, and Alberta had 20,725 vehicle thefts. According to recent data from Ontario, violent carjackings have increased in Toronto by 78% in 2022 compared to 2021. Although car jackings decreased in 2023, Toronto continues to experience unacceptable rates of violence related to motor vehicle thefts.

In response to the current rising concern with the prevalence of motor vehicle theft, including from provinces and territories, law enforcement, and automotive and insurance industries, the Government introduced legislation through the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1 which would respond to auto theft by providing law enforcement and prosecutors with the tools they need to protect Canadians from having their cars stolen. Specifically, this includes:

Bill C-381, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (extortion)

Bill C-381 proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create new mandatory minimum penalties for extortion and an aggravating factor at sentencing where extortion and arson are committed.

Background

Private Member’s Bill C-381 was introduced on February 12, 2024, by Tim Uppal (Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), Edmonton Mill Woods). The bill’s stated objectives are to better protect vulnerable persons in Canada, including those who may be new to Canada, from extortion at the hands of criminal organizations and ensure appropriate sentencing for individuals or groups who commits extortion. The first hour of Second Reading occurred on April 17, 2024. Bill C-381 responds to a reported increase in extortion cases, including those targeting South Asian home builders in the Edmonton area. Similar crimes have been reported in Brampton and Surrey.

The bill proposes to amend the offence of extortion (section 346 of the Criminal Code) to:

Extortion is a straight indictable offence punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. MMPs of five years imprisonment in the case of a first offence and seven years imprisonment in the case of a second or subsequent offence apply if a restricted or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if the offence is committed with a firearm and was for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. In addition, conditional sentences are not available in these cases. Further, the sentencing regime addresses the seriousness of extortion and arson by setting out aggravating factors that a sentencing judge must take into consideration when crafting an appropriate sentence. For example, a court must consider as an aggravating factor the fact that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as well as significant harm to victims.

The Conservative Party of Canada introduced a motion on February 22, 2024, which states that, since 2015, extortion offences have risen by 218% across Canada, including by 263% in Ontario, 284% in Alberta, and 386% in British Columbia. Statistics Canada data indicate that reported cases of extortion have increased from 4,234 cases in 2019 to 9,717 cases in 2022.

In response to call to address this reported rise in extortion cases, the RCMP announced in February 2024 the establishment of the RCMP National Coordination and Support Team (NCST) – a nation-wide alliance of various police departments across Canada to help coordinate and advance extortion investigations across the country. The NCST was created to address rising extortion threats in South Asian communities and seeks to enhance investigative tools to keep up with technological evolutions associated with extortion and increase the efficiency of investigations by facilitating seamless information sharing at a national level, as well as with police departments in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, where extortion cases have been on the rise.

Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders)

Bill S-205 proposes amendments to the bail and peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address intimate partner violence.

Background

Bill S-205 was introduced by the Honourable Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu in November 2021 and proposes amendments to the bail and peace bond provisions of the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act to address intimate partner violence (IPV). It is currently at report stage in the House of Commons.

Most recently, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women studied the bill and referred it back to the House with multiple amendments in February 2024.The Committee voted in favour of removing two out the four bail-related proposals. The first proposal would have required a justice, before making a bail order for an offence involving IPV, to ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused had been consulted. The second would have required bail courts to consider imposing a condition that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device for any offence charged at the request of the Crown. The other two bail-related proposals remain in the bill. These would expand the existing IPV reverse onus to apply to those previously discharged for an IPV offence (an identical proposal to a change made in Bill C-48 (bail reform)) and would require the justice to ask the prosecutor if the victim has been informed of their right to have a copy of the bail order.

The Committee also made amendments to the domestic violence-focused peace bond proposed by Bill S-205. The amendments made at Committee would allow for someone other than the person who may be the victim of the feared offence to bring the peace bond application on their behalf. There were also several changes to the duration, conditions, and procedures of the proposed peace bond to ensure better consistency with existing peace bonds in the Criminal Code. Following the adoption of an NDP motion, the peace bond regime was also amended to allow for an alternative to the peace bond process where either the applicant or the defendant is Indigenous. Pursuant to this change, the justice would have to consider whether it would be appropriate to instead recommend that Indigenous support services be provided, if available.

Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons)

Bill S-224 proposed replacing the existing definition of “exploitation” for the purposes of the Criminal Code’s human trafficking offences. All of its proposed amendments were voted down by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Background

The Government of Canada continues to demonstrate national leadership and is committed to ensuring a whole-of-government approach and comprehensive way forward to address human trafficking. The Criminal Code contains six trafficking-specific offences: trafficking in adults (section 279.01), child trafficking (section 279.011), materially benefitting from trafficking (subsection 279.02(2)), materially benefitting from child trafficking (subsection 279.02(2)), withholding, or destroying identity documents to facilitate trafficking (subsection 279.03(1)), and withholding or destroying identity documents to facilitate child trafficking (subsection 279.03(2)). These offences carry severe penalties of life imprisonment and distinguish between trafficking in adults and child trafficking by imposing more severe penalties where the victim is a child. Evidence must show that the accused intended to exploit the victim or to facilitate their exploitation by someone else. “Exploitation” is defined as engaging in conduct that would cause a person in the victim’s circumstances to believe that their physical or psychological safety would be threatened if they fail to provide any type of labour or services, including sexual services (subsection 279.04(1)). These offences have been interpreted broadly by appellate courts to include cases that involve subtler forms of exploitation that do not include physical or sexual violence. Additionally, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act includes a human trafficking-specific offence, which applies where victims are brought into Canada. This offence has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Senate Public Bill S-224 proposed to replace the existing definition of “exploitation” for the purposes of the Criminal Code’s human trafficking offences (subsection 279.04(1)) and remove the list of factors (in subsection 279.04(2)) that may be considered when determining whether an accused exploits another individual for the purpose of the human trafficking offences. After the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights’ review of the proposed legislation, the Committee did not support the bill and the Chair of the Committee reported the Bill back to the House on September 20, 2023, with amendments that removed the entire content of the bill.

The federal government works closely with provinces and territories to support victims of crime, including victims of human trafficking. Specifically, the Justice Canada Victims Fund makes grants and contributions funding available to provincial and territorial governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other eligible recipients for the creation and enhancement of services for victims of crime and to enhance the knowledge and capacity of those who work with victims of crime so that these professionals and volunteers can better meet victims’ needs.

In support of the National Strategy to Combat Human Trafficking led by Public Safety Canada, Justice Canada makes $1 million per year available through the Victims Fund to NGOs to develop or enhance services for victims of human trafficking. In particular, Justice Canada is providing funding to 16 projects in fiscal year 2024-2025 through the Victims Fund. These projects include the establishment or enhancement of services for victims of human trafficking, as well as the development and delivery of training for law enforcement officers and frontline service providers. A total of $2,198,103 in funding was committed in fiscal year 2024-2025 to support victims of human trafficking.

The Handbook for Criminal Justice Practitioners on Trafficking in Persons, recently updated by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Coordinating Committee of Senior Officials – Criminal Justice Working Group on Trafficking in Persons, is designed to assist front-line personnel and improve the ability of the criminal justice system to bring traffickers to justice while fully respecting the rights and needs of victims. The updated Handbook, which was publicly released in April 2024, reflects a number of developments, including legislative changes, updated jurisprudence, research on trauma informed care and victim-centred approaches, and available services for victims and survivors.

Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures)

Bill S-250 proposes two new Criminal Code offences that would criminalize coerced sterilization procedures.

Background

Bill S-250 was introduced on June 14, 2022, by Senator Yvonne Boyer (ISG), to ensure protection from coerced sterilization procedures to which Indigenous women are known to have been subjected in Canada. The bill also responds to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights’ June 2021 and July 2022 reports entitled, The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada. Specifically, the Committee’s July 2022 report recommends that “legislation be introduced to add a specific offence to the Criminal Code prohibiting forced and coerced sterilization” (recommendation 1).

The bill seeks to achieve its objective by creating two new indictable offences, both with maximum penalties of 14 years imprisonment, that would criminalize: (1) performing a sterilization procedure; and, (2) causing a person to undergo a sterilization procedure by means of deception or the use of intimidation, threat, force or any other form of coercion. It would create an exception to the first offence where the sterilization procedure is performed by a medical practitioner who has obtained the consent of the person to perform the procedure, and has complied with certain safeguards, including by:

The bill would further stipulate that consent is not obtained where: the person is under the age of 18; the person is incapable of consenting to the sterilization procedure for any reason, or the person has not initiated a voluntary request to undergo a sterilization procedure.

Like all other coerced surgical procedures, coerced sterilizations are a form of aggravated assault (section 268), the Criminal Code’s most serious assault offence, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years.

To date, there have been no recorded convictions for aggravated assault in relation to a coerced sterilization procedure. The provinces and territories are responsible for investigating and prosecuting Criminal Code offences within their respective jurisdictions; the responsibility to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code offences lies with police and prosecutors of the jurisdiction in which the offence is alleged to have been committed.