First 100 Days

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Identification of Priorities

Response to the Supreme Court of Canada's Carter decision
(Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia)

Issue

Next steps in responding to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter v. Canada, declaring the Criminal Code prohibitions on physician-assisted dying to be unconstitutional.

Background

In February 2015, the leader of the Liberal Party introduced a motion in Parliament calling for immediate action and the appointment of a special committee to consider the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Carter, consult with experts and Canadians, and make recommendations for a legislative framework that respects the Constitution, the Charter, and the priorities of Canadians. This proposal was mentioned during the election campaign in the Liberal Party of Canada's response (August 2015) to a request for a statement of their position on the issue by the organization Dying with Dignity Canada.

Carter ruling
On February 6, 2015, in Carter v. Canada, the SCC unanimously declared that the sections of the Criminal Code that invalidate consent to one's own death (section 14) and prohibit assisted suicide (paragraph 241(b)) were unconstitutional because they prohibit physician-assisted death for competent adults who:

1. clearly consent to die; and
2. have a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease, or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the person.

The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months to February 6, 2016, to allow time for new legislation to be passed. As the expiry of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity is approaching, a variety of issues require immediate attention.

External panel
On July 17, 2015, the previous Government announced the establishment of an External Panel on options for a legislative response to Carter v. Canada. The Panel is mandated to consult with Canadians, medical authorities, and the interveners in Carter to provide options for a federal legislative response. The Panel is mandated to submit its report to the Ministers of Health and Justice by November 15, 2015. Due to time constraints, it is unlikely that the Panel will be able to produce a report by November 15 that includes analysis of the input received by Canadians and stakeholders and options for legislative reform. If there is a desire to modify or extend the Panel's mandate, a decision would need to be made before that date.

FPT context and considerations regarding a federal legislative response
The Government will have to decide quickly on how to respond to the Carter decision from a criminal law perspective. Jurisdiction over the regulation of physician-assisted dying is shared between the federal and provincial and territorial governments. Parliament can legislate on physician-assisted death under the federal criminal law power, while the provinces and territories legislate on matters related to health.

Most provinces and territories have worked together to launch a provincial-territorial Expert Advisory Group on Physician-Assisted Dying, which is expected to produce a report by the end of 2015, but may need more time depending on the scope of the federal response. Other consultation activities are taking place at the provincial level. Quebec has passed legislation that permits euthanasia for certain individuals who are at the end of life; this legislation will come into force in December 2015.

     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, s.69(1)]     

Key elements of a physician-assisted dying regime (as established by federal and provincial and territorial actions) could include whether to permit physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, or both; who would be eligible to receive assistance to die (e.g., near end of life or grievous suffering even if not life threatening); safeguards to ensure that only those who are competent, informed, and voluntarily consent to die have their lives ended; and systemic oversight measures such as a compliance review mechanism and/or a system for monitoring and publicly reporting on critical elements of the regime's operation. Justice officials continue to develop criminal law reform options pending receipt of the Panel's report and any preliminary directions. A detailed briefing package, including the criminal law reform options developed to date, can be provided.

Whether to seek an extension and considerations regarding a special committee
The SCC's declaration of invalidity of the Criminal Code prohibitions on assisted suicide and euthanasia will be effective starting on February 6, 2016, unless the Attorney General of Canada obtains an extension from the SCC.      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, s.69(1)]     

Recommended Action

     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23]     

Firearms

Background

A number of platform commitments have been made regarding firearms. All of these initiatives, except for repealing a new prescription power in the Criminal Code made pursuant to the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, are the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, as this Minister is responsible for the Firearms Act and its regulations. The RCMP Canadian Firearm Program (CFP), which reports to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is responsible for the general administration of the Firearms Act, which includes firearms registration and certain aspects of firearms licensing. The RCMP CFP is also responsible for providing the technical expertise to assist clients in interpreting and determining the classification of firearms in accordance with the Criminal Code. As Minister of Justice, you are responsible for the firearms-related offences, penalties, and the forfeiture provisions in the Criminal Code as well as the criteria defining the classification of firearms. Below is a summary of the commitments and a brief assessment of next steps and considerations.

Repealing parts of the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act
The platform committed to repealing changes made in the Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act that allow restricted and prohibited firearms to be transported for prescribed purposes with a permanent Authorization to Transport that is issued as part of the licence. The platform also committed to "put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians."      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23]     

Targeted investments
The platform committed to provide additional capacity to the provinces and territories ($100 million annually) to support 'guns and gangs' police task forces to take illegal guns off streets and reduce gun violence. It also committed to enhance the ability of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to detect and halt illegal guns from entering Canada.     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23]     

Enhanced background checks
     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, s.69(1)]     

The platform also committed to restore the requirement for purchasers of firearms to show a licence and for sellers of firearms to confirm the validity of that licence before completing the sale (the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act made it voluntary for a seller to confirm licence validity).      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, s.69(1)]     

New record-keeping requirements
Record-keeping was a legal requirement for firearms businesses prior to the introduction of the long-gun registry.      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, s.69(1)]     

Modify the membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC)
Reconstituting CFAC with a more balanced membership and broadened representation could provide the government with an important consultative body as it moves forward with policy and program reforms. Given that the Minister of Public Safety is empowered under the authority of the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act to establish advisory and other committees, it is within that Minister's authority to make changes to the membership of CFAC as well as its terms of reference.

Firearms marking regulations
The Regulations were made in 2004, but not brought into force. The primary stated purpose for marking firearms is to enable law enforcement to trace crime guns, and the trafficking and stockpiling of firearms, in the interests of public safety and national security. The Regulations stipulate the markings that need to be permanently stamped or engraved on the frame or receiver of all firearms imported into, or manufactured in, Canada.      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23, s.69(1)]     

MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

Background

The proposal is to:

• ensure that marijuana is kept out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals, and to legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana;
• remove marijuana consumption and incidental possession from the criminal law, and create new, stronger laws to more severely punish those who provide it to minors, those who operate a motor vehicle while under its influence, and those who sell it outside of the new regulatory framework;
• create a federal-provincial-territorial task force–and with input from experts in public health, substance abuse, and law enforcement–design a new system of strict marijuana sales and distribution, with appropriate federal and provincial excise taxes applied.

The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and its regulations provide the legal framework for dealing with all drugs in Canada, including cannabis (marihuana). The CDSA creates a summary conviction offence in regard to possession of 30 grams or less of cannabis (marihuana) or 1 gram or less of cannabis resin ("a small amount of cannabis") that is punishable by up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000. The possession of more than these amounts of these products is a hybrid offence punishable by imprisonment for up to five years less a day if prosecuted by indictment.

Federal responsibilities
Justice Canada is the lead on the National Anti-Drug Strategy. The Department is also the lead on the criminal law aspects of drug usage, in the same way as it leads on amendments to the Criminal Code. As Minister of Justice you will be responsible for developing options with respect to the criminal aspects of cannabis (marihuana) legalization. In developing these options, departmental officials will work closely with officials at Health Canada, Public Safety Canada, and Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Options for moving forward will also depend on the system of sales and distribution that is developed by the task force. The Minister of Health will lead on the creation of the task force and on its mandate and timelines.

The Minister of Health is responsible for the CDSA generally. Health Canada is responsible for regulating controlled drugs and substances, including their use by licensed dealers and producers (e.g., for medical marijuana).

The RCMP is the federal lead for criminal investigations into organized crime groups and networks that pose the greatest risk to the safety and security of Canadians, including those involved in the production and distribution of illicit marijuana.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) is responsible for the prosecution of drug offences. In Quebec and New Brunswick, both PPSC and the province prosecute drug offences. However, any province may conduct the prosecution where the drug offence is less serious than other offences being charged (e.g., impaired driving causing death and possession of marihuana).

Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for managing the access of people and goods, including the prohibition of importing contraband such as drugs like cannabis, to and from Canada.

Public Safety Canada exercises a broad leadership role over departments and agencies responsible for public safety and security, including strengthening drug control policies and working with law enforcement to tackle the production and distribution of illicit marijuana.

Medical marijuana and court challenges
Charter challenges have continued in criminal and civil contexts since the introduction of the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR). For example, in June 2015, a Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Smith overturned the prohibition on possession of non-dried forms of medical marihuana. In response, Health Canada issued section 56 exemptions under the CDSA, allowing licensed producers to produce and sell cannabis oil and fresh marihuana buds and leaves in addition to dried marihuana.

With the introduction of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) in June 2013 and the repeal of the MMAR on March 31, 2014, over 300 cases were filed, arguing, primarily, that the elimination of home cultivation of marihuana for personal, medical purposes is contrary to the Charter. Allard et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada is considered to be the lead case for these challenges (the majority of similar cases are stayed until Allard is decided). The plaintiffs obtained an interlocutory injunction order on March 21, 2014, which allows those who were previously authorized to possess and to produce medical marihuana, and who fit within the time period set out in the injunction order, to continue to possess and to produce under the terms of their previous MMAR licences until a decision in Allard is rendered. A decision, expected in fall 2015, could have significant implications on the regime (e.g., if return to home cultivation is permitted in addition to commercial production).

     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23]     

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

A platform commitment was made to "immediately launch a national public inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada [...] to seek recommendations on concrete actions that governments, law enforcement, and others can take to solve these crimes and prevent future ones." The proposed Fiscal Plan by the Liberal Party sets aside $40 million for this work over two years (2016/17-2017/18).

Many have called for a national inquiry and have called for justice for those who have been murdered or who have disappeared;      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.23]     

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's interim report calls for a national inquiry in recommendation 41. The Council of the Federation had earlier expressed support for a call from National Aboriginal organizations (NAOs) for a national inquiry. In addition, several international bodies have called for a national inquiry or national action plan, including the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Committee on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The provinces and territories and the NAOs have indicated that they expect to be consulted on the design of an inquiry. Other non-governmental organizations, such as the Canadian Bar Association, have also expressed interest in providing input, as well as regional and local agencies that have been funded by Justice Canada and others to work with the families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Justice Canada is responsible for a number of programs and initiatives that aim to reduce violence against Aboriginal women and girls, and to improve justice system responses. The Action Plan to Address Family Violence and Violent Crime Against Aboriginal Women and Girls (2015-2020) includes additional funding ($2.5 million over 5 years) for Justice Canada-led activities, building on the earlier initiative from 2010-2015, to break intergenerational cycles of violence and abuse in Aboriginal communities and to support the development of specific victim services for families of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, and to develop a community of practice amongst front-line service organizations ($7.5 million over five years). Other Justice Canada programs that aim to reduce the over-representation of Aboriginal Canadians as victims and offenders include the Aboriginal Justice Strategy and the Aboriginal Courtworker Program. Justice Canada has a history of working closely with provincial and territorial counterparts through several federal-provincial-territorial working groups, including the Subcommittee on Violence Against Aboriginal Women that reports to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Aboriginal Justice Working Group.

     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.69(1)]     

Recommended Action

     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b), s.69(1)]     

Family Justice- Funding Renewal

Issue

Funding for federal family justice activities ends March 31, 2016.     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.69(1)]     

Background

Federal, provincial, and territorial (FPT) governments share jurisdiction over family law matters. The federal government is responsible for laws regarding marriage and divorce, and other related matters ancillary to divorce, such as child custody/access, as well as child and spousal support. Provincial and territorial (PTs) governments are responsible for couples who separate and do not divorce, as well as for the administration of justice. PTs also provide the bulk of family justice services for separating and divorcing couples. The federal government assists with these services through funding and support enforcement.

As a result, for nearly 35 years, FPT governments have responded to the needs of Canadian families through a series of successful collaborative initiatives. The Supporting Families Experiencing Separation and Divorce Initiative (SFI) is the latest such initiative. SFI funding for federal activities and services of $7.2 million annually ends March 31, 2016. Annual funding of $15.5 million provided to the provinces and territories to deliver family justice services, and $500,000 to non-governmental organizations to deliver family law information and training, expires March 31, 2017.

Families affected by separation or divorce
Every year, a significant number of Canadian families face the many challenges stemming from family breakdown. Between 1991 and 2011, five million Canadians experienced a separation or a divorce from their spouse. Of these, 38 percent had a child together at the time of their separation or divorce. In 2011, 2.25 million children lived in divorced or separated families (including families in which the parents had been in common-law unions).

Federal funding (vote 1)
Vote 1 funding pays for federal family law activities and services that support your mandate as Minister of Justice and that seek to alleviate the impacts of separation and divorce on Canadian families. As part of your mandate, you are responsible for federal family laws. Namely, the Divorce Act and its regulations (Federal Child Support Guidelines, Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings); the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act (FOAEAA); and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act (GAPDA). Justice Canada officials deliver to you, and other federal departments, high-quality legal and policy advice and litigation support for these and other federal laws with a family law aspect (such as the Income Tax Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act).

You are also responsible for the operations under the FOAEAA and the GAPDA and the Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings (CRDP). On a yearly basis, Justice Canada receives over 35,000 tracing applications, 69,000 new garnishment applications, and 10,000 licence denial/suspension applications, all of which are processed pursuant to the FOAEAA. Annually, over $175 million is garnisheed to help satisfy family support debts (primarily unpaid child support) as a result of close to 178,000 effective applications. The FOAEAA system has been identified as a federal government-wide mission critical system due to the direct economic impact on Canadian families of the federal enforcement measures. The CRDP processes over 75,000 new applications for registration of divorce proceedings on an annual basis. The collection of this information is required to detect duplicate divorce applications in different courts across Canada.

Over the past two decades, Vote 1 initiative funding has been increasingly used to support Justice Canada's core mandate in the area of family law, allowing it to continue providing legal and policy advice, litigation support and support enforcement, as well as divorce-related services. Vote 1 funding has also allowed the federal government to play a leadership role in an area of shared jurisdiction.      [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b)]     

Recommended Action

     [Information was severed in accordance with the Access to Information Act. s.21(1)(a), s.21(1)(b)]     

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

Date modified:

2016-06-02