9. Policy Issues

Overview: Policy Development

The Minister of Justice has key responsibilities within Canada’s justice system, supported by defined areas of policy focus within the Department, including:

How Policy is Made

Policy development does not occur in isolation; it typically links to the Government’s broader agenda. Major policy orientations are communicated through instruments such as the Speech from the Throne, mandate letters, and the Budget. Policy development can also be reactive to external events, such as court decisions and world events.

Priorities are generally coordinated through structured processes that include forward planning, including the Government House Leader’s legislative agenda and the Cabinet agenda.

The Department is here to support you in the policy planning and development process. This includes working with you and your office to understand relevant policy considerations, including data and evidence, social and economic impacts, impacts on specific populations, domestic and international developments and legal risks. The Department will also support you in consulting and engaging with provinces, territories, Indigenous governments and communities, experts and other constituencies to help gather a wide range of perspectives.

Various policy levers are available to advance the Government’s priorities, including the development of new laws and regulations, programs, litigation strategies and public communications. You will be expected to follow different decision-making processes depending on the type of policy intervention and whether funding is required. The Department will support you in navigating Cabinet, Treasury Board and budget processes.

Key Partners and Stakeholders

In your role as Minister of Justice, you will work with a wide range of different partners and stakeholders. These include federal partners, including your portfolio organizations such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, organizations supporting the courts (e.g. Courts Administration Service), and other federal departments, such as Public Safety Canada, Canadian Heritage and Finance Canada.

Strong collaboration extends beyond federal partners. Provinces and territories are responsible for the administration of justice and are essential partners in advancing justice priorities. Sustained consultation and engagement with Indigenous governments and organizations is also fundamental.

Internationally, the Department’s work is supported through engagement with partners in forums such as the United Nations, the G7, the Commonwealth, and networks like Five Eyes/Quintet. These fora offer the opportunity to advance Canada’s agenda internationally, while also learning from international counterparts.

The Department also liaises with police forces, municipalities, legal aid services, victims’ groups, bar associations and a wide range of academic and civil society organizations to ensure that a broad spectrum of perspectives are considered.

Trends Influencing Justice Policy

The Department has identified several emerging issues and trends that are transforming how legal services are delivered and how justice is perceived:

The Department of Justice looks forward to better understanding your priorities as Minister of Justice and what you would like to accomplish during your mandate. The following is a list of issues on which we would be pleased to engage.

Bail Framework

Issue

Bail is when a person charged with a criminal offence is released from custody while awaiting trial. The provinces and territories (PTs), the police and other stakeholders – as well as members of the public – have raised concerns that people accused of violent crimes are being inappropriately released on bail.

Context

Bail is an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the PTs. The federal government is responsible for enacting the laws governing bail while the PTs are responsible for the administration of the bail system, including conducting most bail hearings and enforcing conditions of release.

The Charter guarantees all accused persons the rights to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (section 11(d)) and not to be denied reasonable bail without “just cause” (section 11(e)). Under the Criminal Code, an accused person may only be denied bail for the following reasons: (1) to ensure their attendance in court; (2) to protect public safety; and (3) to maintain the public’s confidence in the administration of justice (“grounds for detention”). An accused may be released on bail by the police at the police station or by the court following a bail hearing. At a bail hearing, the Crown usually bears the onus of demonstrating to the court that the pre-trial detention of the accused is necessary. However, if a “reverse onus” applies, the accused must demonstrate to the court that their pre-trial detention is not justified.

Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of Canada has provided significant guidance on bail, including that release on bail is a cardinal rule, pre-trial detention should generally be an exception, and release at the earliest opportunity and on the least onerous grounds is the default in Canadian law (St. Cloud, 2015; Antic, 2017; Myers, 2019; Zora, 2020).

In 2019, Parliament enacted a number of changes to the bail regime through former Bill C-75, which was informed by significant work with the PTs. These reforms codified the common law principle of restraint (section 493.1), amongst other things. The principle of restraint is a guiding principle that encourages police and courts to release an accused person at the earliest opportunity, where appropriate, and to only impose bail conditions that are reasonably necessary having regard to public safety.

In 2023, Parliament enacted former Bill C-48 which made targeted changes to the Criminal Code’s bail provisions to address serious repeat violent offending with firearms and other weapons. PTs welcomed the changes and have urged the federal government to add new measures to strengthen bail laws. PTs have committed to taking steps to improve the operation of the bail system, including through data collection, bail supports, and enforcement. The federal government continues to work closely with the PTs on bail issues.

Delays in the Criminal Justice System

Issue

Unreasonable delays in the criminal justice system negatively affect victims and their families, undermine public confidence and are inconsistent with an accused person’s Charter-protected fair trial rights. There are increasing calls for all levels of government to address delays through legislative, programmatic and operational changes.

Context

Section 11(b) of the Charter provides that a person charged with an offence has the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In R. v. Jordan (2016), the Supreme Court of Canada introduced a new framework for determining whether an accused person has been tried within a reasonable time. This framework provides that if the total delay from the laying of the charge to the end of trial (minus defence delay) exceeds 18 months (for cases tried in provincial courts without a preliminary inquiry) or 30 months (for cases tried in superior courts, or in a provincial court after a preliminary inquiry), the delay is presumptively unreasonable and a stay of proceedings must be ordered unless the Crown can demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

Factors that contribute to delays include judicial vacancies, Crown prosecutor shortages, court staff shortages, the increased complexity of criminal trials and procedures, the use of outdated and inefficient technologies, and high volumes of evidence.

Comprehensive data on the number of cases stayed for unreasonable delay are not collected at a national level. The limited data available suggest that the median time to complete adult criminal court cases has increased substantially over time and that the proportion of adult criminal cases exceeding the Jordan ceilings is growing.

Following the Jordan decision, Parliament enacted former Bill C-75 in 2019, which made extensive reforms to the Criminal Code and other Acts to address delays in the criminal justice system. The Bill simplified bail procedures, restricted preliminary inquiries to cases involving the most serious offences, reclassified 118 indictable offences as hybrid to enhance prosecutorial discretion, abolished peremptory jury challenges, strengthened the criminal law’s response to intimate partner violence, and streamlined procedures for non-violent administration of justice offences (e.g., failure to report a change of address) to reduce delays and improve fairness, particularly for Indigenous and vulnerable populations. Former Bill S-4 enacted in 2022 expanded the availability of remote appearances for accused persons, criminal justice system participants and judges, to enhance access to justice and reduce the risk of delays.

On March 31, 2025, 14 victims of intimate partner violence filed a lawsuit alleging in part that the federal government’s failure to enact legislation to respond to the Jordan decision has resulted in violent criminals being released without prosecution, jeopardizing the safety of victims contrary to their section 7 Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.

The federal government is responsible for enacting laws governing criminal law, while the administration of the justice system is a provincial-territorial responsibility. Federal, provincial and territorial governments continue to work together to improve criminal procedure and justice system efficiencies.

Sentencing

Issue

The current sentencing framework under the Criminal Code provides a statement of the fundamental purpose and principle of sentencing and sets out the objectives and principles that guide courts when sentencing an offender. Sentencing is a core part of the criminal justice system and is often the subject of significant commentary.

Context

The Criminal Code provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the protection of society through the imposition of sentences that have one or more of the following objectives: denounce crimes and the harm done; deter the commission of crimes; separate the offender from society; assist with the offender’s rehabilitation; provide reparation for the harm done; and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done.

Numerous provisions in the Criminal Code and the common law guide sentencing courts in imposing fit sentences. The Criminal Code provides that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. To achieve a proportionate sentence, courts must apply a number of principles, such as imposing similar sentences on similar offenders committing similar offences (the Parity principle), as well as taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offender or the offence.

Sentencing courts can order a variety of sanctions, including a discharge, a fine, community sentences (for example, a probation order or a conditional sentence order) and imprisonment. Some offences are punishable by mandatory penalties, including mandatory fines and mandatory imprisonment. The Criminal Code also restricts the availability of certain sanctions in specified cases. For instance, discharges are not available for indictable offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years or life. Conditional sentences of imprisonment are not allowed for certain offences, including those punishable by mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment.

Drugs

Issue

Canada is dealing with an opioid crisis that has led to significant overdose deaths, driven in part by the trafficking of toxic substances like fentanyl by organized crime groups. In recent years, there has been a public health-focused response to the crisis including through harm reduction and diversion from the criminal justice system for persons who use drugs, along with efforts to address the trafficking, distribution, and production of illegal drugs. The presence of drugs and their harmful impact on communities has increased significantly and concerns over community safety have led to calls for stronger criminal justice responses to drug-related offending.

Context

The Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy (CDSS) is led by Health Canada and is organized around four pillars: prevention and education; evidence; substance use services and supports; and substance controls. The substance control pillar focuses on providing health inspectors, law enforcement and border control authorities the tools to address public health and safety risks associated with the use of substances.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) is the federal statute that regulates the possession, distribution, and production of drugs. The CDSA is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Justice plays a role in relation to the offence and penalty provisions of the Act (sections 4 to 10.7). The CDSA provides for a range of criminal justice responses to drug-related offending, from diversion for simple possession to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for trafficking, importation, exportation and production. Courts frequently impose significant prison sentences for drug trafficking, including for fentanyl. It also permits exemptions to the offence provisions for medical, scientific, or public interest purposes (section 56).

Recent efforts to address the links between organized crime and drug trafficking have included appointing the Commissioner of Canada’s Fight Against Fentanyl and introducing measures to combat the production, trafficking, and distribution of fentanyl and its precursors (i.e., chemicals that can be used to make fentanyl, but are not necessarily illegal on their own). It can be expected that pressure for stronger criminal justice responses to illegal drugs will continue, while stakeholders representing persons who use drugs will continue to advocate for an increase in harm reduction approaches.

Organized Crime

Issue

Organized crime poses a significant threat to Canadian society. It generates significant illicit profits from crime, including commodities (e.g., drugs, guns, cars) and people (e.g., trafficking, fraud and extortion).

Context

The Criminal Intelligence Service Canada estimates that between $45 and $113 billion in proceeds of crime is laundered in Canada per year and that organized crime proceeds are the majority of that estimate.

The Criminal Code provides a robust legal framework comprised of specific rules and offences to respond to organized crime. A “criminal organization” is a group of at least three people and has as one of its main purposes the facilitation or commission of serious criminal offences that, if committed, would likely result in the receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit. Specific offences prohibit participating in the activities of organized crime, “gang recruitment”, committing offences in connection with organized crime, and organized crime members instructing the commission of crime for the group’s benefit.

Wiretaps for investigating organized crime are easier to obtain and can last longer than wiretaps for other crimes. Criminal organization offences are subject to a reverse onus at bail, meaning an accused will be detained awaiting trial unless they can show they are not a flight or public safety risk or that their release would not undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

Certain firearms offences committed in connection with organized crime are subject to mandatory minimum penalties of imprisonment. Any offence committed in connection with organized crime is treated as an aggravating factor and all sentences imposed for the specific organized crime offences must be served consecutively (back to back) to any other sentence imposed arising from the same events. A prosecutor may bring an application for the forfeiture of proceeds of crime in organized crime cases.

Recent developments include the creation of a new money laundering for organized crime offence (2024) and the listing of seven transnational criminal organizations as terrorist entities (2025).

Organized crime investigations and prosecutions can be lengthy and complex and, as such, can be highly resource intensive. Concerns about court delays can be particularly acute in these cases. Federal officials continue to work to address these issues, including in collaboration with provincial/territorial and law enforcement partners.

It is important that Canada’s legal framework, and its implementation, is regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains responsive to the threats posed by organized crime and the challenges associated with investigating and prosecuting it.

National Security

Issue

Canada faces a range of national security threats, including foreign interference (FI), terrorism and violent extremism (T/VE), and cyber threats, which are often interconnected and require a multifaceted response.

Context

Coordinated federal efforts to protect Canada’s national security are focused on legislation, law enforcement, intelligence, and social cohesion programs aimed at preventing, disrupting, and responding to such threats. As Minister of Justice, you are responsible for the Criminal Code, Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act (FISIA), the Security Offences Act and the Canada Evidence Act. Each of these laws address national security concerns and the Department supports you and the government through the provision of advisory, litigation, legislative and policy services on national security matters.

Foreign Interference

FI threatens to undermine Canadian sovereignty, social cohesion and to diminish the public’s trust in our institutions. Recent amendments to the FISIA and Criminal Code added new offences and stream-lined existing ones to assist police and prosecutors in deterring and countering foreign interference. Amendments to the Canada Evidence Act introduced provisions to address the use of intelligence in the administrative law context. The final report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference, released January 2025, concludes that Canada has the means necessary to detect, deter and counter foreign interference, but recognizes the threat posed by disinformation and the “scourge” of transnational repression.

Terrorism and Violent Extremism

T/VE, whether it is ideologically, religiously, or politically motivated, poses a significant threat to national security, endangering the lives of people in Canada and the fabric of Canadian society. Shifting away from formal membership-based groups, T/VE threats are increasingly transnational movements that encourage violence. Terrorist groups will collaborate with other criminals to achieve their ends, including with domestic or transnational criminal organizations. Radicalization, especially of youth, is increasingly taking place in online forums. The Criminal Code contains numerous measures to combat T/VE, including terrorism offences and other provisions targeting terrorist activities, as well as the terrorist listing regime that publicly identifies entities involved in terrorism.

Cyber threats

Cyber threats from state and non-state actors are becoming more complex and sophisticated, threatening Canada’s national security and economic prosperity. Cyber threats, including cybercrime, are targeting critical infrastructure and essential services through fraud, scams and ransomware. State-sponsored cyber actors are attempting to influence public opinion and intimidate people in Canada through coordinated cyber campaigns. It is important that law enforcement and prosecution authorities have modern and effective tools to effectively investigate and prosecute crime in the current environment.

Tools to Investigate Crime, including Lawful Access

Issue

New and emerging crime trends and advances in technology and digital communications have made investigating and prosecuting crimes more complex. It is important that law enforcement and prosecution authorities have modern and effective tools that respect the Charter and protect privacy interests to effectively investigate and prosecute crime in the current environment.

Context

Lawful Access

Almost all crimes now leave trails of electronic evidence. Law enforcement’s timely and lawful access to electronic evidence is critical due to the ease with which data can be deleted, altered, or hidden. The Criminal Code provides law enforcement with many different investigative authorities that relate to data (e.g., search warrants, production orders that allow for the tracking of movement of a person or thing, and wiretap authorizations). Law enforcement advocates for more modern tools to gain timely and lawful access to data, especially subscriber information (e.g., the name of an internet account holder) and transmission data (IP addresses), which are of particular importance at the early stages of an investigation.

Protecting Sensitive Investigative Techniques

As criminals leverage new technology, law enforcement agencies are turning to more sophisticated technological investigative tools to support investigations, in accordance with the law. The use of these tools has furthered the discussion about how to balance the Crown’s disclosure obligations against the need to protect sensitive investigative techniques.

Hate, including Antisemitism

Issue

There are growing calls for all levels of government to take action to combat hate online and in communities amidst the rise of hate speech and hate crimes in Canada.

Context

In 2023, there were 4,777 police-reported hate crimes, up 32% from 3,612 in 2022. This included 1,284 hate crimes targeting religions, the majority of which were directed towards Jewish (70%) and Muslim (16%) populations. Overall, as of 2023, the number of police-reported hate crimes more than doubled since 2019 (+145%). Preliminary data for 2024 reports 4,722 police-reported hate crimes, 2,219 (45%) of which targeted race or ethnicity and 1,211 (27%) targeted religion.

The Criminal Code has numerous provisions to address hate crimes, including four hate propaganda offences. It also prohibits mischief motivated by bias, prejudice or hate to property primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes (e.g., for education or for cultural purposes). There is a provision requiring judges to consider, as an aggravating factor in sentencing, evidence that a crime was hate-motivated based on enumerated grounds, such as race or religion. Proposed reforms in former Bill C-63 would have created a new hate crime offence and increased the maximum penalties for the hate propaganda offences, amongst other measures.

Canada’s Action Plan on Combatting Hate was released in 2024 and includes a range of measures to address hate. These include Justice Canada initiatives to support victims of hate-motivated crime and working with the provinces and territories (PTs) to promote effective criminal justice system responses to hate crime.

In response to the rise in antisemitic hate incidents in Canada, the federal government hosted the National Forum on Combatting Antisemitism on March 6, 2025. The Forum brought together FPT and municipal leadership, law enforcement, prosecutors and members of the Jewish community to address public safety threats posed by antisemitism. Following this event, the federal government committed to examining, in consultation with PTs, potential Criminal Code reforms to strengthen tools for law enforcement and prosecutors to address hate crimes in the following areas: access to religious and cultural buildings; extreme forms of hate speech; display of terror symbols; and impediments to the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Firearms

Issue

To provide an overview of firearms, federal laws governing them and recent efforts by the federal government in relation to gun control and crime committed with guns.

Context

In Canada, federal and provincial-territorial governments have authorities to enact laws in relation to firearms. Federally, firearms are primarily regulated through the criminal law. The Criminal Code (your responsibility) creates offences and other measures to address the public safety risks of firearms. It defines firearms as prohibited (e.g., automatic firearms), restricted (e.g., some handguns), or non-restricted (e.g., hunting rifles) based on their characteristics and allows firearms to be similarly classified by regulation. The Firearms Act (the Public Safety Minister’s responsibility) sets out the framework governing licencing and registration, and the transport and transfer of firearms by individuals and regulates the firearms industry.

Provinces may make firearms laws under their jurisdiction over property and civil rights (e.g., rules relating to hunting with firearms).

Escalating firearms crime and violence continues to generate significant public concern. While there is agreement on the need to address these issues, there is often sharply divided views on the best way to do this.

In 2023, Parliament enacted former Bill C-21, which amongst other things, created new provisions to address ghost guns (i.e., illegally manufactured untraceable guns), increased penalties for gun trafficking and created new laws to better respond to the role of guns in gender-based violence (i.e., yellow and red flag laws). In 2020, 2024, and 2025, three batches of assault-style firearm (ASF) were prohibited by regulation (totalling over 2582 makes and models). When these guns were prohibited, the government also promised fair compensation to affected persons through a buyback program. Participation in the buyback program would be one way that affected firearms owners could dispose of their firearms. It is illegal to possess prohibited firearms, so amnesty orders were enacted to protect affected individuals from criminal liability. The 2020 and 2024 amnesty orders expire on October 30, 2025, and the 2025 amnesty order expires on March 1, 2026.

The 2020 ASF ban was challenged by judicial review in the Federal Court and upheld in 2023. The Court’s decision was subsequently appealed and upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal on April 15, 2025.

Victims in the Criminal Justice System

Issue

Supporting victims of crime is a responsibility shared by the federal, provincial, and territorial (PT) governments. While the federal government is responsible for the development of criminal law and procedure – including the Criminal Code – as well as for the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights (CVBR), the PTs are responsible for the administration of justice, which includes the delivery of victim services. Ongoing collaboration between all justice system participants is essential in ensuring that victims and survivors are supported in the criminal justice system (CJS) and are treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

Context

The Federal Victims Strategy (FVS) was created in 2000 and seeks to give victims a more effective voice in the CJS. The FVS is led by the Department of Justice and its strategic activities include program development and delivery; policy development and federal leadership; and criminal law reform. The FVS works in collaboration with PT governments to advance federal objectives while ensuring that PT jurisdiction is respected. An important part of the FVS, the Victims Fund, provides grants and contributions to eligible recipients including to promote access to justice and improve the capacity of service providers.

The Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime (OFOVC) was created in 2007 to ensure the federal government meets its responsibilities to victims of crime. The Ombudsperson is an arm’s-length Special Advisor to the Minister of Justice. The OFOVC’s mandate is limited to areas of federal jurisdiction and does not extend to services provided by the PTs. The OFOVC addresses certain victims’ complaints; identifies and reviews emerging systemic issues; and facilitates victim access to federal programs and services. Victim complaints about CJS actors under PT jurisdiction are addressed by the relevant PT authorities.

The CVBR came into force in 2015 and established statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and to seek restitution at the federal level for victims of crime. It also provides victims with the ability to make a complaint to the relevant authorities if they believe their rights have been infringed or denied.

Currently, victims-related issues of particular interest include strengthening the CJS’s response to hate crimes and gender-based violence – including intimate partner violence – and addressing the rights of victims under the CVBR.

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID)

Issue

To provide an overview of medical assistance in dying (MAID) and to highlight two current issues: 1) MAID where the sole underlying condition is mental illness; and 2) MAID on the basis of an advance request.

Context

MAID is a process that allows someone to receive assistance from a practitioner in ending their life. The federal legal framework governing MAID is contained in the Criminal Code. That said, because of the health aspects associated with MAID, the Minister of Justice works closely with the Minister of Health on MAID issues and Health Canada leads work with the provinces and territories on MAID and related issues.

MAID was legalized in Canada in 2016 for persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable. This was done by creating the federal MAID framework that is contained in the Criminal Code and sets out the minimum requirements for the lawful provision of MAID. These include eligibility criteria to determine who can obtain MAID, and procedural safeguards to ensure that MAID is provided safely. The Criminal Code makes clear that a practitioner who provides MAID – and others who assist in the provision of MAID – in full compliance with these requirements are exempt from the criminal offences of murder, aiding a person to die by suicide, and administering a noxious thing. The provinces and territories are responsible for the implementation of MAID, given their responsibility over healthcare.

In 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec declared the requirement that natural death be reasonably foreseeable unconstitutional (Truchon). The Attorney General of Canada did not appeal this decision; and in 2021, eligibility for MAID was expanded to persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable (former Bill C-7). This included the creation of two sets of procedural safeguards: one set for MAID requests where natural death is reasonably foreseeable (Track 1) and more robust set for MAID requests where natural death is not reasonably foreseeable (Track 2).

Former Bill C-7 also temporarily excluded persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for MAID until March 17, 2023. This date was pushed back twice: first to March 17, 2024 (former Bill C-39), and then again to March 17, 2027 (former Bill C-62).

There are currently two aspects of MAID that have received significant attention:

  1. Mental illness: Without the enactment of further legislation, the provision of MAID based on a mental illness alone will become lawful on March 17, 2027. A joint Parliamentary review of the mental illness exemption must begin by February 28, 2026 (as required by former Bill C-62).
  2. Advance requests: An advance request refers to situations where a person who is not seeking MAID outlines the circumstances under which they would want to receive it, in the future, if those circumstances arise after they lose capacity. While not permitted under the Criminal Code, Quebec legalized advance requests in October 2024. Health Canada subsequently conducted a national conversation on advance requests and is expected to publish a “What We Heard” report.

Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission

Issue

The Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission will be an independent commission that will decide which criminal cases should be returned to the justice system due to a potential miscarriage of justice.

Context

Former Bill C-40, Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission Act (David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law) received Royal Assent on December 17, 2024. The legislation reforms the existing miscarriage of justice review process in Part XXI.1 of the Criminal Code and creates a new Part XXI.2 that establishes an independent Miscarriage of Justice Review Commission, replacing the role of the Minister of Justice. The new Part XXI.2 of the Criminal Code came into force on March 6, 2025, a key milestone to establish the new Commission.

The Commission’s mandate is to review, investigate and decide which cases should be referred back to the courts for a new trial, hearing or appeal. It will have the duty to provide outreach to applicants and the public about its mandate and miscarriages of justice in general. It will provide guidance and supports to applicants, as well as information and notification to victims. For greater transparency and accountability, decisions will be made public in annual reports to Parliament. The Commission will be composed of a full-time Chief Commissioner and 4 to 8 other commissioners (full- or part-time), appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice. The head office of the Commission has been designated by the Governor in Council to be in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

An Order in Council to bring the amended Part XXI.1 of the Criminal Code into force, making the Commission operational, can only be made after 5 commissioners, including the Chief Commissioner, have been appointed, funding is secured, positions are staffed, website is ready, and all implementation activities have been completed.

As per the legislation, once the Commission begins operating, existing applicants could consent to have their applications transferred to the Commission to be processed under the new scheme, or continue under the existing scheme, if they passed the preliminary assessment stage.

Family Law and Child Support Framework

Issue

The federal government is responsible for divorce and other related matters, including parenting and child and spousal support. Currently, the Divorce Act regulations governing child support amounts are outdated.

Context

Divorce and separation are among the most stressful situations a family can experience, and this can be exacerbated during challenging economic times.

Family law is an area of shared constitutional responsibility. Provinces and territories (PTs) are responsible for non-divorce family matters (e.g., separation of common law couples) and the administration of justice.

The federal government is responsible for divorce and other related matters, including parenting (formerly “custody” and “access”) and child and spousal support for divorcing couples. Key pieces of federal family law legislation include the Divorce Act, Civil Marriage Act, Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA) and Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act (GAPDA). Significant changes to the Divorce Act, FOAEAA and GAPDA were made over the last few years, in areas such as parenting, family violence, and improving family law processes. Implementation is ongoing.

Justice Canada coordinates federal efforts to help PTs enforce family support obligations.

8Child support can help reduce the risk of poverty, especially in low-income and lone-parent families. The Federal Child Support Guidelines (Divorce Act regulations) set rules to determine child support. Specifically, the Federal Tables set out monthly child support amounts based on the annual income and PT of residence of the paying parent, and number of children. All PTs except Québec adopted the Federal Tables in their own child support guidelines (i.e. for non-divorce cases). The tables are produced by Justice Canada and are typically updated approximately every 5 years to account for changes in the tax system. The tables were last updated in 2017 and are now dated.

There are calls to modernize the Federal Guidelines, given that they remain largely unchanged since their 1997 introduction and no longer reflect current family realities (e.g., increased shared parenting).

Youth Criminal Justice

Issue

The Minister of Justice is responsible for the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), the federal framework for Canada’s youth criminal justice system (CJS).

Context

The YCJA applies to youth aged 12 to 17 who have, or are alleged to have, committed a criminal offence. The YCJA is intended to protect the public by holding youth accountable, promoting their rehabilitation and reintegration, and preventing crime.

Since 2003, the YCJA has significantly reduced youth admissions to custody. That said, certain populations, such as Indigenous and Black youth, are much more likely to be represented in the youth CJS than in the general population. Male youth by far continue to account for the majority of youth admitted to correctional services.

The youth crime rate and the youth crime severity index increased in 2022 and 2023 after almost two decades of decreases. Adult sentencing of youth has also recently come under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada, with a decision pending in two youth cases, I.M. v. His Majesty the King and S.B. v. His Majesty the King.

The provinces and territories are primarily responsible for enforcing and implementing the YCJA. This includes investigating and prosecuting most offences, managing youth justice courts and youth custodial facilities, and providing programming and services for youth. The federal Youth Justice Initiative supports the implementation of the YCJA by funding programs and services while addressing new and emerging youth justice issues. The federal government works closely with the provinces and territories to improve the youth CJS.

Immigration and Refugee Legal Aid and Intensive Rehabilitation Custody and Supervision Program

Issue

Immigration and Refugee (I&R) Legal Aid funding and the Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) Program are facing financial pressures and require early direction.

Context

I&R Legal Aid

The unprecedented volume of asylum seekers over the past two years continues to put pressure on the demand for I&R legal aid services. I&R legal aid provides access to legal aid services for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers and individuals involved in certain immigration proceedings. Obtaining asylum in Canada is a complex legal process for which claimants need support to navigate. I&R legal aid supports fair, effective and efficient decision-making on asylum and certain immigration claims by helping individuals present the relevant facts of their case in a clear and comprehensive manner. This contributes to asylum system efficiencies by reducing time and demands placed on decision makers by individuals who are forced to self-represent. Funding is provided in eight provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New-Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador. Current agreements end on March 31, 2027.

Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) Program

The IRCS Program supports public safety by financially assisting provinces and territories in providing specialized assessments and treatment services for youth with mental health needs who have committed serious violent offences, with the objective of reducing violent reoffending and increasing the chances of successful rehabilitation and community reintegration. The IRCS program includes funding for operating capacity, “court-ordered IRCS cases” and “other exceptional cases” (non-court-ordered cases). Contribution agreements are currently in place with all jurisdictions (except for Québec) for the period of April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2027.

Canada’s Black Justice Strategy

Issue

Starting in 2023, the government worked with Black communities and experts to develop Canada’s Black Justice Strategy (the Strategy). The Strategy aims to reduce the rate of involvement in the criminal justice system of Black people in Canada, including as victims of crime.

Context

Data show that Black people are more likely to be stopped, searched, and charged by police than white people. Black accused are more likely to be detained prior to trial, and more likely to receive a long-term custodial sentence. Black people are also overrepresented in Canada’s correctional system. In 2022-23, Black youth accounted for 8% of youth admissions to correctional services in the three provinces that report, while representing 4% of the youth population. In 2022-23, Black adults accounted for 8% of the federal offender population while comprising 4% of the adult population.

The Strategy was developed in consultation with Black communities across Canada, including an external Steering Group of nine experts and leaders. Provinces and territories were engaged and kept informed on the development of the Strategy through various fora. A 10-year Implementation Plan was released in February 2025, which reflected the 2024 Fall Economic Statement’s proposed investments of $276.4 million across nine federal departments and agencies to establish the Strategy. These investments are intended to support community-based interventions to reduce crime and support victims, and address key data gaps to better understand disparities in criminal justice system outcomes.

The criminal justice system is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial-territorial governments. The federal government is responsible for criminal law, the majority of which is contained in the Criminal Code and the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The provinces are responsible for administering justice through enforcement of the law and prosecution of most offences. While the federal government makes funding available to assist provinces, territories, and community-based organizations in supporting victims and reducing crime, frontline service delivery (e.g., policing, courts, victim services) falls largely to provincial, territorial, municipal, and community-based organizations.

Indigenous Justice Strategy

Issue

The Indigenous Justice Strategy (the Strategy) was publicly released on March 10, 2025.

Context

The Strategy aims to provide a vision and priority areas of action to address systemic discrimination and the urgent crisis of Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system; to support the revitalization and enforcement of Indigenous laws in the spirit of cooperative federalism; and to improve community safety. It is guided by Indigenous ways of knowing on justice and healing and is intended to be a vehicle for further advancing First Nations, Inuit, and Métis self-determination.

The Strategy was co-developed with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis partners, including interested Modern Treaty and Self-Government Partners. It was informed by an extensive engagement process that began in 2021, which involved both Indigenous-led and Justice-led engagements. Given their key role and jurisdiction in relation to the administration of justice in Canada, this work was also done in collaboration with provinces and territories.

The Strategy sets out 26 priority actions grouped into 7 themes: Collaborative Relationship and Accountability; Long-Term and Predictable Funding; Justice and Wellness; Policing; Corrections; Revitalization and Enforcement; and Legislation. The Strategy also includes distinctions-based chapters that highlight key priorities from the perspectives of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.

Canada will leverage existing justice-focused collaborative tables and processes with Indigenous partners, provinces, and territories to help advance regional priority-setting and cost-shared implementation plans for the Strategy.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

Issue

Justice Canada leads the strategic coordination of federal implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA), working with departmental leads and Indigenous partners to achieve the objectives of the Act.

Context

The UNDA came into force on June 21, 2021, and sets out a framework for implementing the UN Declaration at the federal level. Shortly after, an Order in Council designated the Minister of Justice as the lead minister responsible for its implementation.

Under the Act, the Government of Canada must fulfil three inter-related legal obligations in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, namely: taking all measures necessary to ensure the laws of Canada are consistent with the UN Declaration (section 5); developing and implementing an action plan to achieve the objectives of the UN Declaration (section 6); and, developing annual reports on progress and submitting them to Parliament (section 7).

All federal departments are responsible for ensuring their legislation, regulations and other legal instruments are consistent with the UN Declaration. Justice Canada supports this work by providing advice, tools, and training for officials.

The 2023-28 Action Pan is the result of two years of working in consultation and cooperation with First Nations, Inuit and Métis from across Canada. Federal departments are currently in year three of implementation activities. Released on June 21, 2023, the Action Plan contains 181 measures to be led by 28 departments and agencies, addressing the majority of the priorities identified by Indigenous partners throughout the engagement process.

Justice Canada also leads on the preparation, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, of annual progress reports to Parliament on measures taken to align the laws of Canada with the UN Declaration and on the preparation and implementation of the action plan. The fourth Annual Progress Report is expected to be finalized in June 2025 and will need to be tabled.

Final Report: Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools

Issue

On October 29, 2024, the Independent Special Interlocutor for Missing Children and Unmarked Graves and Burial Sites associated with Indian Residential Schools delivered her Final Report which included 42 recommendations.

Context

The Special Interlocutor was appointed by the Minister of Justice in June 2022 as part of the Government of Canada’s response to the announcement by the Tk̓emlúps te Secwépemc in May 2021 confirming that up to 215 potential unmarked burials had been identified at the site of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. The Independent Special Interlocutor worked collaboratively with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis in accordance with her mandate “to identify needed measures and recommend a new federal framework to ensure the respectful and culturally appropriate treatment of unmarked graves and burial sites of children at former Indian residential schools”.