VMUN 2018

House of Commons

BACKGROUND GUIDE

Vancouver Model The 17th Annual Session | January 19 - 21, 2018

Dear MPs, Ken Hong Secretary-General Perhaps the most essential question at the heart of a society is that of justice. What is a crime? What gives the state the right to punish individuals for their actions? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What is just in a democratic and multicultural society like ? These questions have no clear and final answers – like most things in a nation, they are continual works in Callum Shepard progress. must rise to the occasion and make bold reforms to ensure the future of a Chief of Staff just and equitable Canada.

Jerry Jiao The VMUN House of Commons is not a true-to-life representation of the Parliament that sits Director-General in – we’ve changed the seat distribution of the various parties and blocs to prevent any single group from unfairly dominating, and have tweaked many of the ceremonies to allow for Andrew Wei the very limited timeframe within we must operate – these changes will be detailed in the HoC Director of Logistics ROP guide. Similarly, we’ve adjusted the position of the various parties to allow for more contentious and interesting debate about the topics. It’s our firm belief that the changes we’ve made are largely in line with the ideology of the parties, and will enhance delegates’ ability to truly engage with the issues that will be debated at VMUN 2018. Jadine Ngan USG General Assemblies It is important to note that half of the topics under consideration will be from the delegates themselves. This year, we hope to place a greater emphasis on Private Members’ Resolutions, Eric Zhang the bills that are written and submitted by delegates themselves, in lieu of position papers. USG Specialized Agencies PMRs can be about anything MPs want, provided it is appropriate for substantive discourse. We will select a limited number of PMRs for consideration by the full HoC. Dillon Ramlochun USG Conference The House of Commons is not an ‘easy’ committee. As representatives of the various peoples and constituencies of Canada, as well as parliamentarians, MPs will be expected to quickly Angelina Zhang learn and adapt to the changing political situation on the floor of the Chamber, consider out- USG Delegate Affairs of-the-box solutions, demonstrate political acumen, and adroitly form (and betray) alliances to pass their legislative agendas. By participating in the debate at the VMUN 2018 House of Jerry Xu Commons, you, our MPs, will be continuing the highest philosophical and democratic USG Delegate Affairs traditions of Canada and human civilisation.

Alan Chen Best Regards, USG Finance Arun Solanky Meghna Lohia Speaker of the House of Commons USG IT

Criminal Justice Reform...... 4 Timeline ...... 4 Historical Analysis ...... 4 Current Situation ...... 5 Possible Solutions and Controversies ...... 8 Bloc Positions ...... 9

Speaker’s Note ...... 9

Liberal Party – of Canada ...... 10 Conservative Party – Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition ...... 10 The New Democratic Party ...... 10 The Bloc Quebecois ...... 10 The Green Party ...... 10 Discussion Questions ...... 10 Bibliography ...... 12

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 3 Criminal Justice Reform

Timeline

December 16, 1689 — English Bill of Rights ratified following the Glorious Revolution; it lays out the rights of citizens and limitations on the power of .

June 22, 1774 — Act instituted, re-establishing French Civil Law in the conquered province of Quebec, while granting freedom of testation English common law would still be used in matters of public law, including criminal prosecution and court procedure.

December 26, 1791 — Constitutional Act establishes representative self-government in Upper and Lower Canada under the auspices of the British Parliament.

February 10, 1840 — Act of Union abolishes the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada following the abortive Rebellion of 1837, forming the from the combination of the two; Quebec can retain its Civil Law system.

July 1, 1867 — Constitution Act creates a federal of Canada and the foundation of the modern Canadian justice system.1 Part VII of the Constitution Act deals specifically with the “Judicature” of Canada.

December 16, 1949 — British (2) grants Canada limited powers to amend its constitution without the assent of Parliament; this is later superseded, granting Canada full rights to amend its constitution.

December 20, 1960 — Act, states that Superior judges must retire at the age of 75.

April 17, 1982 — Canada Act declares the full sovereignty of Canada from the and the British Empire.

April 17, 1982 — Charter of Rights and Freedoms added to the , though its effects are somewhat mitigated by the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution.

April 17, 1982 — Constitution Act, Section 35 enshrines rights of Inuit, Metis, and other First Nation people within Canada, including the rights to traditions and practices integral to the distinct cultures of native peoples. The treaty also reaffirms the legally binding nature of treaties with aboriginal nations.

April 17, 1982 — Constitution Act, Section 36 affirms the value of ‘Equal Opportunity’ for all , though most constitutional scholars agree the section is too vague to be interpreted as more than a political call for redistributive action of some kind.

Historical Analysis

Legal systems have existed for as long as there have been societies — whether it be the code of Hammurabi or canon law, nearly all societies have generated a codified system of rules regarding the behaviours and expectations of members of society. The modern, western conceptions of justice can be traced back to Greece,

1 Barnes, Thomas Garden (2008). Shaping the Common Law: From Glanvill to Hale, 1188–1688. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804779593.

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 4 where the concept of Isonomia in the Athenian republic codified the then-somewhat-radical concept of citizens’ equality before the law.2 We say somewhat because only about a tenth of the population were actually citizens.

While a variety of Greek and Roman philosophers and statesmen championed the idea as an alternative to kingly rule, from Thucydides to Plato, Cicero was the first in centuries to argue for the reapplication of the term in a strictly legal sense, arguing for reforms to the hopelessly corrupt legal system of the late Roman Republic. The term then vanished, reappearing in an 11th century Bolognese law school whose students are credited with codifying Roman principles into legal codes.

The next major evolution in the legal system came with the introduction of the Magna Carta, during the reign of John Lackland of England, in 1215, following a rebellion by a group of barons who were unimpressed by John’s lackluster rule and inability to maintain control of Brittany. Lamentable loss of Brittany notwithstanding, the Magna Carta was a significant development in the history of constitutionalism and limited government, nominally forcing the King to respect the property and legal rights of the barons, as well as the Catholic Church (it had been drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury; most nobility were illiterate).

The Canadian justice system emerged from English common law system, initially imported to Canada by colonists. The term “common law” can be confusing; simply put, a common-law jurisdiction relies on the application of precedent from previous decisions to new cases, rather than the application of specific laws to a case; most Commonwealth are Common-Law jurisdictions.3

However, the Canadian justice system developed in Quebec to incorporate what was known as “civil law,” or the Napoleonic Code. In a “civil system” like the Quebecois one, jurisprudence is given secondary importance to the specific letter of the law – cases are decided via an interpretation of laws by judges on a case-by-case basis. It is important to note that this legal dichotomy, only applies to civil cases, where one citizen is suing another, rather than Federal or Criminal lawsuits within the province of Quebec, both of which still function under the norms of Canadian common law.

Because of this fusion of history, the Canadian justice system - like most organs of Canadian government- retains a distinctly dual nature. While the principle of Parliamentary supremacy remains, the Canadian legal system works through a combination of the Constitutional precedents set by Canada’s Roman forebears and those Common-Law precedents set by the English legal system.

Current Situation

The modern justice system of Canada, as per the Constitution Act, is divided into three different branches: provincial, military, and federal.4 The relationship between the Federal and Provincial Courts is complex; the Federal courts exist mainly to hear cases regarding immigration and the actions of Federal agencies, or to hear civil cases where the Federal is a party to the case. After 9/11, the Federal government granted extensive police powers to the Federal courts with regards to issues of national security. By contrast, in keeping with the decentralised political structure of the Canadian government, most criminal and civil suits are heard by Provincial Courts.

2 Hansen, M. H. (1999). The Athenian in the age of Demosthenes structure, principles, and ideology. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. 3 Ibid. 4 Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. (2017, August 04). Where our legal system comes from. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 5 It is important to note that the term “Provincial Court” can be somewhat misleading – in fact, it can mean two different things depending on context. Firstly, a (common noun) “provincial court” is a general term simply referring to any court established by the of a given province. Conversely, a (proper noun) “Provincial Court” is the court created by the legislature of a given province to oversee the implementation of criminal law in each province.

An Outline of Canada’s Court System5 There are three levels of legal adjudicative bodies within the Canadian justice system, as seen above. Firstly, on the lowest level, exist the Provincial and Federal Administrative Tribunals, which are specialised regulatory bodies typically comprised of experts in specialised fields, such as telecommunication, immigration, labour relations, and health issues.

These Administrative Tribunals are not comprised of judges and are controversially not bound by the doctrine of stare decisis¸ or judicial precedent. Therefore, said Administrative Tribunals can make decisions in direct contradiction of existing precedents, at odds with the common-law system’s typical emphasis on precedent. Both provinces and the Federal government can create tribunals, with commensurately limited spheres of influence; federal tribunals’ decisions are typically national in scope, while provincial tribunals are limited to the single province from which they come.6

On an equal footing, within the provinces, are the “small p” provincial courts. These inferior courts are typically not responsible for dealing with major crimes, instead they have responsibility for minor civil suits and misdemeanour-type cases. In many cases, these courts are specialised to deal with specific areas, such as youth law, family law, or small claims.7

5 Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. (2017, August 04). Where our legal system comes from. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html 6 Kuttner, T. S. (n.d.). Administrative Tribunals in Canada. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-tribunals/ 7 Kuttner, T. S. (n.d.). Administrative Tribunals in Canada. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-tribunals/

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 6 The appellate process in Canada, in keeping with Western legal practices, is not a re-examination of the evidence presented at trial. Instead, during the appeals process, the superior court will examine whether the court that originally made the judgement was fair in its treatment of the parties to the case, whether the court followed correct procedures, and whether the court had the power to render the judgement it did. See Figure 1 for a diagram of the appellate powers of the various courts. Every single court in Canada is ultimately answerable to the , which may overturn any ruling by any court.8

Superior to these bodies are the Provincial Superior Courts and the Federal Courts of Trial, respectively (there are no inferior federal courts). As seen in the Outline of Canada’s Court System above, Provincial Administrative Tribunals and Federal Administrative Tribunals are both subject to judicial review at the hands of Superior Courts and Federal Trial courts.

Moreover, there are few formal limits on the power of the Superior Courts in Canadian law. Unless there is a specific law or statute banning a Superior Court from hearing a case, it may, at its discretion, hear the case. However, in College Housing Co-operative Ltd. v Baxter Student Housing Ltd. the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the use of inherent jurisdiction powers to hear cases at the discretion of the Superior Courts was a special power that could only be used sparingly, and when doing so, the Superior Courts did not have the ability to overturn laws or statutes promulgated by the several legislative organs of Canadian government.9

The final organ of the Canadian justice system is the Supreme Court, comprised of the eight Puisne Justices and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. As with most judicial appointments in Canada, they are Governor-General-in-Council appointments, wherein the judges are appointed as representatives of the Crown by the Queen’s agent in Canada – the Governor General. By tradition, the Governor General will make their decision based upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, or, when appropriate, the First Minister of the province.

Per the of 1875, three of the nine members of the Supreme Court must be members of the bar association or legal community of Quebec – the only other requirements are that Justices must have been members of the Bar for more than ten years, or previously a Superior Court judge. Unsurprisingly, Quebec’s disproportionately large representation on the Supreme Court has been an ongoing source of contention for many years. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for any case in the Canadian justice system, be it federal or provincial: the Supreme Court is empowered to render judgement. To appeal to the Supreme Court, three Justices must support a motion of leave, by the appealing party – predictably, relatively few of these are granted.

The other major power of the Supreme Court is to give opinions on issues of Constitutional interpretation, when asked by the Governor-General-in-Council, per Section 53 of the Constitution Act. This typically means that the Supreme Court will say whether it believes a proposal or piece of legislation is Constitutional, upon the request of the parliamentary leadership of a given province or the Opposition. It is entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court whether they will render an opinion on a given topic, though the Supreme Court will typically render opinions on issues of national importance.10 Note that via the Notwithstanding Clause of the

8 Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. (2017, August 04). Where our legal system comes from. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html 9 Baxter Student Housing Ltd. et al. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd. et al, 1975. 10 Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. (2017, August 04). Where our legal system comes from. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 7 Constitution, the Supreme Court’s opinions can be overridden for a period of five years by a simple majority of the Canadian or Provincial Parliament, at which point it will need to be renewed.11

A landmark case in recent Canadian jurisprudence was R. v. Jordan, wherein suit was brought by a British Columbian prisoner who had been lengthily imprisoned for drug offences, while still awaiting trial. The Supreme Court found that in cases where there are excessively lengthy delays in the trial process, the integrity of the legal system is compromised. As such, the plaintiff was released from prison and the various provinces have been impelled to strive to reduce waiting times for trials. Critics of the decision argue that Jordan is an impracticable decision, placing unrealistic and unfair burdens upon strained prosecutors. Jordan - some say - may in fact be helping criminals at the expense of the Canadian justice system.

Possible Solutions and Controversies

It should be noted that these issues are by no means an exhaustive list of the issues present in the Canadian justice system, nor an exhaustive list of the parties’ policies and positions with regards to the issue of criminal justice reform. We heartily encourage delegates to write bills that address different issues within the Canadian justice system – provided proper execution, diversity in debate is a key element of a successful Model UN simulation, and in a committee as delegate-driven as the HoC, there is near infinite room for ‘spin’ on the committee’s primary topic. The political process is based in creativity and originality – show us yours.

While usually regarded as free and fair, prominent issues have come to the fore within the Canadian Justice system in recent years, most prominently the issues of judicial bias, drug legalisation, minority justice, and efficiency in the justice system.

While tribunals and courts are theoretically non-partisan, this is in practice undermined by the appointment system. Members of tribunals and courts are appointed via the Order-in-council process, wherein the Federal or Provincial cabinet appoint members of the judiciary. In practice, this means that the ruling party of either the province or the majority party in Ottawa can appoint judges and tribunes at their discretion, without accountability to Parliament. Critics have argued that this encourages ‘stacking the bench’ by the ruling party, who will appoint partisan judges to advance a legal perspective endorsed by the party in power.

To combat allegations of inequity, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper created a non-binding parliamentary commission to cross-examine his nominees the Canadian Supreme Court. His successor, Prime Minister Trudeau, has formalised this with a hearing and application process, whereby any Canadian lawyer can apply to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Following the selection of a Candidate, the Justice Minister will then be impanelled before a “Justice and Human Rights Hearing,” which any member of the House of Commons or the Senate may attend.12

Despite these apparent reforms, critics still contend that this ad hoc process can be revoked at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and does not actually allow Parliament to have a say in the selection of the Justices. Instead, critics argue, this is merely a fig leaf for continued Prime Ministerial autocracy with regards to judicial appointments. Nor does the system do anything to address the appointments of judges in inferior federal courts or in the provinces. For there to be meaningful judicial reform, there must be greater accountability on the part

11 Canada Act. 1982 12 Forsey, E. A. (n.d.). Order-in-council. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/order-in-council/

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 8 of the Prime and First Ministers to their parliamentarians, possibly in the form of formal commissions with veto powers, as the Opposition has argued.

Another key issue within the Canadian justice system has been the issue of judicial efficiency.13 As found by the Supreme Court of Canada in the seminal case R v. Jordan, excessive delays in bringing defendants to trial is a violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Canadians – holding prisoners indefinitely as they await trial is an unacceptable violation of legal standards.14 Moreover, it is also unfair to victims of crimes, as they are forced to wait painful years to see justice rendered or to receive restitution.

Finally, the issues of minority rights and drug legalisation are nearly inextricable. Every province in Canada has significant overrepresentation of minority populations in prisons. As in various other countries, a key reason for this is greater usage of illegal drugs and other prohibited substances among the disproportionately poorer immigrant communities of Canada. The Liberal government has promised limited drug legalisation, allowing the free use of marijuana throughout Canada, though this has been attacked as too radical and too conservative by the Tories and the NDP respectively.15 Another key issue within the sphere of drug legalisation is the concern of harmonisation of drug policy across the various provinces, which reserve significant powers with regards to the prohibition of substance and trade within Canada.

The Canadian justice system is an old and storied one, but in the changing times of the 21st century, it has become clear that along with the other democratic institutions of the nation, the courts have not evolved alongside the needs and demands of a more open and democratic society. If we are to ensure a more just and equitable future for Canadians of all kinds and creeds in the generations to come, we must ensure that they can live in a society where they can be assured of the principle of equality before the law.

Bloc Positions

Speaker’s Note In some cases, we have tweaked the positions of the various parties of the Canadian parliament. In many instances, there exists no official policy with regards to various aspects of proposed reforms to the justice system – so we made one. It is out of our sincere admiration and love for the Canadian democratic tradition that we have made these changes; we hope MPs will be able to experience a contentious and lively debate like that of the real House of Commons. As always, the VMUN House of Commons is not meant to be a perfect facsimile of real life, but rather to give delegates an experience reflective of the House of Commons. DO NOT LIMIT YOURSELVES TO THE TOPICS IN THIS BACKGROUND GUIDE! There will be a variety of subcommittees in the HoC, and there will be plenty of time to discuss topics other than the select few we have enumerated here. In our view, the best MPs are those that bring original ideas connected to the topic to the floor.

13 Cook, M. (2016, September 23). Overthrowing Precedent: R v Jordan's Impact on the Crown and the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecourt.ca/overthrowing-precedent-r-v-jordans-impact-crown- right-trial-within-reasonable-time/ 14 R v. Jordan (July 8, 2016), 2016 Canada Decisia 36068. 15 Hunter, J. (2017, March 03). Trudeau says he won't decriminalize illicit drugs beyond marijuana. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trudeau-says-he-wont-decriminalize-illicit-drugs-beyond- marijuana/article34197772/

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 9 Liberal Party – Government of Canada As the governing party in Canada, the Liberals wish for relatively minor adjustments to the judicial appointments process – while the Prime Minister’s initiative for applications to the Senate and the Supreme Court have been carried, they have not limited the power of the Government to appoint people whom they feel they can rely upon. The Liberals wish to retain their extensive powers of appointing officials. The Liberal party supports limited drug legalisation, but the Prime minister has stated opposition to legalisation of drugs other than marijuana. The Government has not taken an official position with regards to the outcome of R. v. Jordan and its ramifications regarding judicial outcomes. The Liberals hope to secure limited sentencing reform – they do not want to be seen as soft on crime.

Conservative Party – Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition As the opposition to the Liberal government, the Tories hope to constrain the power of the Government as much as possible for the immediate future, though they are leery of neutering the powers of Governor-General-in- Council excessively since they hope to return to power with the next elections. The Conservatives continue to oppose any attempt to legalise any drugs, such as marijuana, staunchly, viewing it as anathema to their values. The Conservatives wish to use the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution to override R v. Jordan as they feel the potential for criminals to be freed is unacceptable. The Conservatives are generally opposed to sentencing reform, though not very strongly.

The New Democratic Party As they are in opposition to the Liberal government, the New Democrats hope to constrain the power of the Government by limiting the power of the Liberals to make Council-in-Chamber appointments. Since the NDP have never managed to form a government, they are more sanguine about limiting the powers of the Prime Minister and would welcome stronger parliamentary oversight of all such appointments, closer to the role the ’ Senate plays in confirmation of high officials. The NDP agree with the Liberal Party’s platform with regards to drug decriminalization, but hope to implement a more radical programme, including more needle exchanges and greater support for victims of the Opiate epidemic. The New Democrats staunchly support the expansion of civil liberties mandated by R. v. Jordan and are committed to ensuring lighter sentences for minorities via sentencing reform.

The Bloc Quebecois As they are in opposition to the Liberal government, the Bloc hope to constrain the power of the Government; however, they are ambivalent with regards to Governor-General-in-Council-Appointments. The Bloc continues to oppose any attempt to legalise any drugs, such as marijuana, staunchly, viewing it as anathema to their values. The Bloc wish to use the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution to override R v. Jordan as they feel the potential for criminals to be freed is unacceptable. The Bloc is strongly opposed to sentencing reform.

The Green Party The Green Party has not taken a stance on most the issues, other than marijuana legalisation, and sentencing reform which they strongly support, alongside the legalisation of other drugs.

Discussion Questions

1. Should R. v. Jordan be sustained, even though it may allow some criminals to go free?

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 10 2. To what extent is drug liberalization, if at all, a desirable thing for the society of Canada?

3. Can sentencing guidelines be changed to facilitate greater equity for minorities and the First Peoples?

4. Is political patronage via the Governor-General-in-Council system an acceptable byproduct of an expeditious system for selecting officials?

5. Is the system for selecting Supreme Court Justices acceptably transparent and accountable?

6. How can we alter the Canadian justice system to better ensure equity and fair treatment for all who pass through it?

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 11 Bibliography

Barnes, Thomas Garden (2008). Shaping the Common Law: From Glanvill to Hale, 1188–1688. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804779593.

Baxter Student Housing Ltd. et al. v. College Housing Co-operative Ltd. et al. (June 26, 1975) (Canadian Legal Information Institute, Dist. file).

Blatchford, C. (2016, September 14). Christie Blatchford: Possible conflict at inquiry shows cozy, opaque behaviour at top level of justice system. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-possible-conflict-at-inquiry-shows-cozy-opaque- behaviour-at-top-level-of-justice-system/wcm/d8bd8ba1-186c-45de-a8eb-874b59a972ae

Cook, M. (2016, September 23). Overthrowing Precedent: R v Jordan's Impact on the Crown and the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecourt.ca/overthrowing- precedent-r-v-jordans-impact-crown-right-trial-within-reasonable-time/

Forsey, E. A. (n.d.). Order-in-council. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/order-in-council/

Government of Canada, Department of Justice, Electronic Communications. (2017, August 04). Where our legal system comes from. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/03.html

Hansen, M. H. (1999). The Athenian democracy in the age of Demosthenes structure, principles, and ideology. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hunter, J. (2017, March 03). Trudeau says he won't decriminalize illicit drugs beyond marijuana. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trudeau-says-he-wont- decriminalize-illicit-drugs-beyond-marijuana/article34197772/

Kuttner, T. S. (n.d.). Administrative Tribunals in Canada. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/administrative-tribunals/

Lown, P. (n.d.). Law Reform. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/law-reform/

NDP REALITY CHECK: Did Conservatives and Liberals ignore constitutional residency requirements when rubber-stamping Senate appointments? (2016, July 16). Retrieved August 15, 2017, from https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-reality-check-did-conservatives-and-liberals-ignore-constitutional- residency-requirements

NDP: Decriminalize marijuana now. (n.d.). Retrieved August 15, 2017, from https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp- decriminalize-marijuana-now

Newark, S. (n.d.). Canada's court system needs to face its complacency problems, now. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/10/01/canadas-court-system-needs-to-face-its-complacency- problems-now

Perrin, B., & Auras, R. (2016, September 30). Inaugural justice system report card finds criminal justice system slow, inefficient and costly: MLI report by Benjamin Perrin and Richard Audas. Retrieved August 13, 2017, from http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/justice-report-card-2016/

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 12 R v. Jordan (July 8, 2016), 2016 Canada Decisia 36068.

Waldron, J. (2016, June 22). The Rule of Law. Retrieved August 15, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rule-of-law/#HistRuleLaw

Vancouver Model United Nations 2018 13