Main Estimates 2020–21
Legislative overview
Bill C-3: Judicial Training on Sexual Assault Law and Social Context
- Bill C-3 is aimed at enhancing public confidence and sexual assault survivors’ confidence in the criminal justice system. The goal is to ensure judges hearing sexual assault matters will have the necessary training to fairly and properly decide matters, without the influence of myths and stereotypes.
- It is also essential to public confidence in our justice system that judges be aware of and understand the social context in which they hear matters, and the factors that may affect individuals’ engagement with the justice system. Such factors include gender, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, differing mental or physical abilities, age, and socioeconomic background and familiarity with issues related to children and family violence.
- The Bill will also enhance accountability and transparency by requiring that judges provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault proceedings and that these reasons be set out in writing or in the record of the proceedings.
- Question: Should the bill specifically address issues such as anti-racism, discrimination, and cultural sensitivity?
Answer: The Government is committed to ensuring that judges have the training necessary to help ensure a criminal justice system that is free from discrimination and sensitive to the cultural context of those involved. - Social context education is intended to ensure judges are aware of and understand the social context in which they hear matters, and the factors that may affect individuals’ engagement with the justice system. Such factors include gender, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexual orientation, differing mental or physical abilities, age, and socioeconomic background and familiarity with issues related to children and family violence.
- Question: Should the bill be expanded to include other actors in the justice system?
Answer: Bill C-3 has been carefully crafted to ensure that the unique functions, and the constitutional role that judges fulfil, are protected and taken into account. While I agree that more needs to be done, other actors cannot simply be grafted onto this legislation. This would be better addressed in a different legislative vehicle. - Question: Does the bill undermine judicial independence?
Answer: Bill C-3 respects the principle of judicial independence, which is critical to public confidence and a core constitutional principle. Judicial independence requires judicial control over the training and education of judges and this is why the National Judicial Institute, which is internationally recognized for its work on judicial education, would provide the required training to the newly appointed judges.
Background:
Following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020, and the opening of the new parliamentary session on September 23, 2020, former Bill C-5 was reintroduced as a Bill C-3 on September 25, 2020.
Bill C-3, like its predecessor Bill C-5, is consistent with former Private Member’s Bill C-337, which was introduced during the 42nd session of Parliament. Importantly, the Bill reflects the amendments to Bill C-337 adopted by the House of Commons providing for the inclusion of continuing education on social context in addition to matters relating to sexual assault law. It also incorporates the amendments to Bill C-337 proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Bill C-337 was adopted unanimously in the House of Commons, but had not been passed by the Senate at the dissolution of the 42nd Parliament.
On October 19, 2020 Bill C-3 passed Second Reading unanimously and was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Committee decided not to hear from any witness and to proceed directly to clause by clause.
In Budget 2017, Government provided the Canadian Judicial Council with $2.7 million over five years, and $0.5 million per year thereafter, to ensure that more judges have access to professional development, with a greater focus on gender and culturally-sensitive training.
Prepared by: Adair Crosby
Branch: PLLSS
Date: October 21, 2020
Approved by: Stephen Zaluski
Branch: PLLSS
Date: October 22, 2020
Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), introduced on October 1, 2020
- Bill C-6 reflects our commitment to protect the dignity and equality of LGBTQ2 people by criminalizing conversion therapy-related conduct.
- Bill C-6 would create five new Criminal Code offences that would prohibit profiting from or advertising conversion therapy, causing minors to undergo conversion therapy, including abroad, and forcing others to undergo conversion therapy.
- Conversion therapy causes harm to those subjected to it and is based on the discriminatory view that alternative sexual orientations and gender identities can and should be changed—a view that stigmatizes LGBTQ2 persons, undermines their dignity and negatively affects their equality rights.
- Question: Why doesn’t Bill C-6 propose to criminalize practices, treatments or services that are aimed solely at changing a person’s gender expression?
Answer: Bill C-6 strikes a careful balance between the rights and freedoms of individuals who may choose to receive or provide conversion therapy, on the one hand, and the equality and dignity of LGBTQ2 people on the other. We look forward to hearing views on the scope of Bill C-6’s proposed offences as Parliament debates and studies the Bill. - Question: Would Bill C-6 criminalize discussions about sexual orientation or gender identity, for example between family members?
Answer: Nothing in Bill C-6 captures conversations or discussions in which personal viewpoints on sexual orientation or gender identity are expressed, including between family members or parishioners and religious officials.
Background:
Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy), which was introduced on October 1, 2020 and is identical to former Bill C-8, defines “conversion therapy” as any practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual or gender identity to cisgender, or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour. The Bill also clarifies that its conversion therapy definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition or exploration or development of a person’s identity.
Specifically, the Bill would create five new Criminal Code offences that would criminalize:
- Causing minors to undergo conversion therapy (maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years on indictment and 2 years less a day on summary conviction);
- Removing minors from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad (maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years on indictment and 2 years less a day on summary conviction);
- Causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will (maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years on indictment and 2 years less a day on summary conviction);
- Profiting, or receiving a material benefit, from the provision of conversion therapy (maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years on indictment and 2 years less a day on summary conviction); and,
- Advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy (maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years on indictment and 2 years less a day on summary conviction).
Three provinces (Ontario, Nova Scotia and PEI) have prohibited health care professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors (unless they are capable of consenting and do consent) and both Quebec and the Yukon have introduced bills that would effect similar reforms. Some Canadian municipalities have also banned businesses from providing conversion therapy services (for example, Vancouver and Edmonton).
Prepared by: Nathalie Levman
Branch: CLPS
Date: October 21, 2020
Approved by: Carole Morency
Branch: CLPS
Date: October 21, 2020
Medical Assistance in Dying – Bill C-7
Bill C-7 proposes to broaden eligibility for medical assistance in dying beyond those whose death is reasonably foreseeable, with additional safeguards. It would also permit the waiver of final consent for those who are already approved, whose death is reasonably foreseeable, and who risk losing capacity to consent before receiving medical assistance in dying (MAID).
- On October 5, 2020, I re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), in response to the Québec Superior Court decision in Truchon. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7, which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.
- Bill C-7 would broaden eligibility for medical assistance in dying to those whose death is not reasonably foreseeable, with additional safeguards, and to permit the waiver of final consent for those who are already approved, whose death is reasonably foreseeable, and who risk losing capacity to consent before receiving medical assistance in dying.
- Canadians are eagerly awaiting these amendments, which will protect vulnerable individuals and the equality rights of all Canadians, while at the same time supporting individual autonomy and reducing suffering.
- Question: Why does Bill C-7 exclude persons with only a “mental illness” from accessing MAID?
Answer: This issue is extremely complex and the views of experts are strongly divided. For this reason, it will be examined during the parliamentary review of the legislation that is required by former Bill C-14. - Question: Why does the Bill still include the concept of “reasonably foreseeable natural death” if it is no longer an eligibility requirement?
Answer: The “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” condition would be kept as a way of deciding which procedural safeguards will be applied to MAID requests. Under Bill C-7, a strengthened set of safeguards would be applied for MAID requests where a person’s death is not yet foreseeable, where many experts say the risks are higher. In these cases, practitioners would be required to take additional steps to ensure that the request is fully informed and considered, and that patients have explored all reasonable options.
Background:
MAID Legislation
Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying), which has been in force since June 17, 2016, created exemptions from otherwise applicable criminal offences (aiding a person to die by suicide and culpable homicide), permitting practitioners to provide medical assistance in dying (MAID) in certain circumstances. The legislation requires a parliamentary review of its provisions, which was expected to begin in the summer of 2020 but has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On September 11, 2019, in the Truchon and Gladu case (Truchon), the Québec Superior Court struck down the eligibility criterion requiring that a person’s natural death be reasonably foreseeable.
On October 5, 2020, the Minister of Justice re-introduced Bill C-7, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), in response to the Québec Superior Court decision in Truchon. The Bill would: repeal the “reasonably foreseeable natural death” (RFND) criterion; exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness; create two sets of safeguards that apply depending on whether natural death is reasonably foreseeable; allow the provision of MAID on the basis of consent given in advance if the person’s death is reasonably foreseeable, they are eligible for MAID, and they risk losing capacity before their scheduled date to receive MAID; and expand data collection under the federal monitoring regime. RFND continues to function, however, as a means of assessing which procedural safeguards will apply in MAID requests with stronger safeguards in place where death is not foreseeable. Bill C-7 is identical to former Bill C-7 (introduced on February 24, 2020), which died on the Order Paper following the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020.
Bill C-7 was also informed by concerns and issues raised during the January and February 2020 consultations with Canadians, and roundtables held across the country with experts and stakeholders.
The Superior Court of Québec granted a second extension of the suspension, to December 18, 2020, in order to give Parliament adequate time to consider the amendments in Bill C-7.
Monitoring
The Regulations for the Monitoring of MAID came into force on November 30, 2018 and set out the framework for mandatory reporting for physicians and nurse practitioners who receive written requests for MAID, and for pharmacists who dispense drugs for MAID. The First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada, prepared using the federal monitoring regime data, was released on July 24, 2020 and covers the 2019 calendar year.
The Report includes information on requests for MAID, data on MAID-related deaths, access to and receipt of palliative care, and disability support services among persons who received MAID.
Prepared by: Monique Macaranas
Branch: Criminal Law Policy Section
Date: October 21, 2020
Approved by:
Branch:
Date:
- Date modified: