Debates of Oct. 25th, 2023

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Criminal Code

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Minister of Families]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to)

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak about Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The bill was reported back to us with some modifications by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following their careful study of its proposals.

Bill S-12 proposes amendments to both the publication ban provisions of the Criminal Code and the national sex offender registration regime. The bill is an example of the government's commitment to responding to concerns around sexual offending and demonstrating its overall commitment to victims of crime.

The proposed reforms of publication bans aim to increase victim autonomy and control in this area of the law. The changes proposed to the national sex offender registry would ensure the continued operation of this valuable police tool by making changes to bring it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First, I would like to discuss the amendments relating to publication bans. These proposals have been informed by the lived experiences of victims of sexual offending, and they have always had the empowerment of victims as their ultimate objective.

I want to give a particular thanks to My Voice, My Choice. This group has worked tirelessly to advocate for improvements to the publication ban regime. I can say with confidence that its members' advocacy has changed the national narrative on publication bans for the better. Without them, we would not be having this important conversation on returning agency to victims and ensuring that they are not silenced against their will.

My message to all victims and survivors is that these conversations are not over. We know that there is always more to be done. We can continue to fight for positive change. It is incumbent on us to see Bill S-12 as a step in the right direction, not an end point.

The amendments in Bill S-12 would improve communication between victims and justice system actors with respect to publication bans and ensure that there is a clear legislative process on how to amend or revoke a ban. Importantly, it is our intent that prosecutors consult with victims before a publication ban is invoked. Prosecutors should ascertain whether victims wish to have a ban in place and act accordingly. Moreover, the accused should not and will not have any say in whether a publication ban should be revoked or modified.

In addition, Bill S-12 would add clarity to the law with respect to the conduct captured by a publication ban. It is only in the rarest cases that a victim or witness should be prosecuted for such a breach. Publication bans are there to protect victims and should not be weaponized against them in the criminal justice system.

Another victim-centric element of Bill S-12 would improve victims' access to information in the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, who advocated for this change.

Bill S-12 would ensure that victims are asked whether they would like to receive information on case developments after sentencing, such as appeals or parole. This would be a great improvement on the current system, in which victims must proactively make a request to receive information. In some cases, victims are not told that they must make this request, or they have trouble indicating their wishes.

Every victim is different; some want updates, while others want to move on and not hear about their case ever again. Bill S-12 recognizes that this choice is entirely theirs. Our justice system should ensure that victims are supported to make the best choice for themselves.

I will now turn to the Senate amendments made to the publication ban aspect of Bill S-12. For the most part, these amendments greatly improved the bill by creating a more robust and victim-centred approach to publication bans. However, some of these amendments raised concerns, which were voiced to the justice committee by the minister and were shared by some provincial attorneys general. We also heard testimony from organizations and individuals that represent victims, and they echoed some of these concerns.

In the Senate, provisions were added that would enhance communications with victims about the imposition of publication bans. For example, prosecutors would be required to ask the victim if they wished to have a publication ban that applied to their identifying information, as well as to inform a victim who was the subject of a publication ban about its existence and the right to revoke it. The Senate also amended the bill to propose a more robust process for how a publication ban can be revoked or varied. In addition, the Senate crafted provisions that would clarify what information is captured by a publication ban to ensure that victims could share their own information with friends and family, for example, without fear of any prosecution.

These were positive suggestions that improved the bill, and the justice committee was generally supportive of the intention behind these changes.

However, as I previously indicated, we heard testimony at the justice committee from witnesses who voiced concerns with the effects of some of the Senate amendments. I am grateful to the witnesses who lent their expertise to improve Bill S-12 by pointing out these concerns.

To that end, the justice committee proposes to delete language that would require the prosecutor to inform victims and witnesses who are subjects of a publication ban about the circumstances under which they could legitimately disclose information without facing legal consequences. The committee shared concerns raised by some of the provincial attorneys general that this proposal presented serious questions about prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest. This is because some of the Crowns who would be giving that advice may also be called upon to prosecute an individual for the offence of breaching a publication ban.

I am confident that removing this language would not impact the objective of ensuring better communications with victims about a publication ban, but ensure our Crown prosecutors could continue to effectively carry out their duties. Further, some witnesses heard by the committee during the study said that they would prefer to see the Criminal Code include a list of professionals to whom victims or witnesses could disclose identifying information without breaching the publication ban.

In response, the committee proposed an amendment that would specify that victims or witnesses do not breach a publication ban if they disclose their identifying information in situations where the disclosure is to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person of trust. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Green Party and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke who suggested this change.

I am strongly in favour of these amendments as I believe they add clarity to Bill S-12 while still respecting the overall objective of empowering and giving a greater voice to victims of sexual violence.

I now turn to the sex offender registry provisions in the bill. The legislation would strengthen the sex offender registry and respond to the Supreme Court decision striking down sections of the registry. Bill S-12 proposes that all sexual offenders must be placed on the registry in cases involving a designated offence unless they can show that the registration would be overbroad or grossly disproportionate to the objective of the registry. Providing this limited discretion to judges responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision while still ensuring a robust registry that would assist police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.

However, in recognition that there are some offenders who will always pose a higher risk of reoffending, Bill S-12 proposes to retain automatic registration for two categories of offenders.

The first category is repeat sexual offenders. If offenders are convicted of a sexual offence and have another sexual offence in their background they would automatically be registered. This is reflective of the social science evidence that indicates that repeat sexual offenders are twice as likely as first-time offenders to reoffend sexually.

The second category is offenders who commit sexual offences against children and are sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment in cases where the offence is prosecuted by an indictment. These offenders would be covered even in the case of a first-time offence. Proposing automatic registration for this category is reflective of the social science evidence that offending against children is a validated risk factor for sexual offending. Sexual offences against children are among the most heinous crimes and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. Bill S-12 would ensure the police have the necessary tools to prevent and address these crimes.

I would like to be clear that limiting automatic registration to these two narrow categories of offenders is not intended in any way to signal that other sexual offending is any less serious. This could not be further from the truth. All sexual offending is reprehensible, but within the confines of the majority judgment in the Ndhlovu decision, I am confident this was as far as the government could go with respect to automatic registration.

I would like to be clear that this government has faith in the judiciary to make appropriate decisions. The bill also provides a robust appeal mechanism when there is a need to challenge a decision made by a trial judge about whether an offender should have been required to register.

In addition, Bill S-12 proposes to provide judges with a list of factors that are relevant to assessing an offender's risk of sexual reoffending. This proposed list incorporates well-established risk factors based on empirical social research.

In addition to providing guidance to judges, these factors are intended to address the criticisms and concerns reflected in the minority judgment about the possibility that myths about sexual offending will inform any part of a judge's decision.

I would like to close my remarks by reminding members that Bill S-12 also proposes other changes to strengthen the sex offender registration regime. Bill S-12 addresses operational issues that have been identified by our provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners. This includes, for example, creating a new compliance warrant provision that would allow police officers to arrest non-compliant offenders, bring them to a registration centre and give them an opportunity to provide the legally required information.

Bill S-12 would also expand the list of offences that qualify an individual for the registry. The list would include crimes such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion. These are terrible crimes that have had serious impacts on Canadians, especially women and children. I am glad to see their inclusion on the list.

The bill would also require registered sex offenders to provide 14 days' notice of any travel as well as specific addresses of their destination. These changes have been lauded by American officials, including Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas. I know that these measures would contribute to enhanced security on both sides of our shared border.

I am confident that Bill S-12 is a balanced, thoughtful and constitutionally defensive response to the Supreme Court. It also represents our government's ongoing commitment to victims and survivors of crime. Victims and survivors must have full ownership of their own stories; this is critical. I urge all members to support this bill.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the House to consider giving me unanimous consent to have my vote included in the last round of votes. There were six votes that took place. I had technical difficulties on the first one and then I was able to get four done. I have just found out that my vote was not recorded on the vote on Bill C-278. I would like unanimous consent to have it considered in the negative, voting nay against the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize one of my former students who was just called to the bar by virtue of the tutelage of his principal Jay Michi. That is Kyle Komarynsky. I wish him a long and fruitful career as a distinguished lawyer.

I listened to my colleague's speech. I have asked the justice minister this question three times. One time he hid behind an official, in my view, who gave wrong information about whether sexual offences could lead to house arrest. They clearly can lead to house arrest in most if not all jurisdictions, especially offences against children.

Will the parliamentary secretary commit here and now to say that they will legislate so that sex offences against children cannot result in house arrest?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend's student. I know what an honour it is to be a mentor to young students who are entering the profession and it is quite something when they reach their goal, so well done.

First off, I was there and the minister was not hiding behind anybody. Let us make that clear, for starters.

This bill is quite clear and we had extensive debate. I really enjoy working with the member. I am relatively new to the committee. I have been on the committee before, but not with my colleague across the way. We have a good working relationship.

I am confident in saying that this bill would go very far in protecting children and making sure that those who are guilty of these heinous crimes that the member is referring to receive the punishment that is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, some victims only found out that their assailant was about to be released through media reports. Can my colleague assure me that this kind of situation will never happen again and that victims will finally receive the concrete information they need to protect themselves?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the focus of this bill is victims' rights. Every section of the bill and every discussion we had with respect to the bill was with that in mind. The publication ban provisions, in particular, were entirely focused on victims' rights and making sure that they have the information that they need when they are caught up or involved in the legal system. I share the member's concern, and I can assure her again that the bill would do everything possible to make sure that victims' rights are not only acknowledged but information is communicated to the victims at the appropriate time.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's weak-on-crime policies, Canada has become a more dangerous place and he is not worth the cost.

Liberal law Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, has unleashed a wave of violent criminals onto our streets and incidents of repeat and violent crime have predictably surged as a result. This increase in crime is particularly true when it comes to sexually based offences. Under this NDP-Liberal government's watch, sexual assaults have gone up 71%. Sex crimes against children have seen an astonishing 126% increase.

Thanks to extreme politicians weakening our laws, those who commit sexual assault can now serve their sentences at home in the same community as their victims.

According to Statistics Canada, only one in five cases of sexual assault reported to police result in a trial. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported in the first place, due to fear and stigma, the lowest of all violent crime.

I know that when I was sexually assaulted, as a child of 12, by two perpetrators, I was too afraid to tell my parents, even. I did not tell my mother until I was 40 years old. That is the story for many women in Canada.

The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter points out that only one in nine cases of sexual assault reported to police results in a conviction. Worse, only one in 15 reported cases results in the perpetrator being sentenced to jail. As a mother of three daughters, I find these statistics alarming. As a lawyer and member of the official opposition, I must hold the government presiding over this crime wave responsible. The lack of urgency of the NDP and Liberals to protect women and children is shocking. They must act now to fix the problems they created with this radical ideology that puts criminals first and victims last.

These stats only tell part of the story. The assault is traumatic enough for the victim to live once. The effects last a lifetime. To get justice, they are required to relive the trauma during the rigours of a criminal trial. They are often revictimized, forced to recount their assault through their own testimony and cross-examination. It is understandable that sex crimes and assaults are significantly under-reported, making it impossible to accurately quantify just how widespread this picture is.

It is not just sexual assault. Other forms of sexual violence are also on the rise. Online child exploitation has increased.

According, again, to StatsCan, my province of British Columbia accounted for 54% of Canada's reported incidents of making and distributing sexually explicit images. The RCMP in British Columbia dealt with 9,600 cases of child exploitation last year alone.

This is unacceptable in the extreme and speaks to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children.

The House must acknowledge that Canada has a problem with sex crimes, as we debate legal changes to the sex offender registry.

In my family law practice, I handled a case where a woman was concerned for the safety of her child during a custody dispute. She expressed concern that unsupervised contact with extended family members on the father's side of the family could put her child at risk of sexual assault. I discovered, through a sex offender registry in the United States, that the family member in question was a known offender. We were able to secure conditions in the custody arrangements that kept the child safe and under supervision.

This underscores the need for a strong, effective sex offender registry, to help law enforcement keep the public safe.

The legislation before us today, Bill S-12, amends the Sex Offender Registration Information Act, following a Supreme Court ruling that determines that sections of this law were unconstitutional.

The court gave the Liberals one year to fix the unconstitutional provisions. That was on October 28, 2022. The so-called “feminist government” has dragged its feet yet again, and here we are today at the 11th hour debating the bill with a looming deadline just three days away.

Bill S-12 would change the Sex Offender Registry Information Act that was first passed in 2004 with the support of all parties. It was created to assist law enforcement agencies by requiring the registration of specific information about sex offenders, such as addresses, phone numbers, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of the victims and their relationship to the offender. At the time it was up to the discretion of the judge as to whether a sexual offender should be on the registry.

However, this led to several issues. In 2009, the public safety committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to enrol in the sex offender registry. Conservatives recognized that to be effective and to actually protect women, children, victims and survivors, the national registry had to be enforced consistently across the country. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We support tough sentencing and enforcement against sexual crimes.

The previous Conservative government brought in the law that required convicted sex offenders to be automatically listed on the national sex offender registry to better protect the public, a measure that was also supported at the time by all parties. Conservatives remain supportive of legislation that would protect the public from sexual offenders, including Bill S-12. However, the bill is another missed opportunity to improve public safety.

At committee, the Liberals amended their own bill to further prioritize the interests of the accused in sexual assault cases. Frankly, accused sexual offenders do not need more support in the criminal justice system. It is the victims and survivors who need the support. This was a chance for the coalition government to stand with victims, but once again it abandoned them. Common-sense Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we will amend the legislation to ensure this is the case when we form government.

As a family lawyer, I often dealt with custody cases where the sex offender registry was especially used to protect the interests of children. It is an essential tool for police and law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that the court's decision will water down the effectiveness of the registry and make it harder for police to prevent and investigate sexual offences.

At committee, that soft-on-crime NDP-Liberal government opposed our common-sense amendments to strengthen the bill and opposed amendments to publication bans that key stakeholders, such as My Voice, My Choice, which was earlier praised by the member opposite, have advocated for. While the government claims it stands for women's rights and supports survivors of sexual violence, its actions say otherwise.

Victims and survivors welcome stronger penalties and protections like mandatory enrolment in the national sex offender registry. They have asked for increased flexibility and victim input regarding publication bans and access to case information. The Liberals had a year to get the legislation right. Their delayed response has opened the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration if Parliament does not comply with the court-imposed deadline looming close now, something Conservatives will not allow.

We will agree to pass the bill through the House today to avoid putting the registry at risk. However, make no mistake, there is only one party committed to ending the crime wave, keeping vulnerable Canadians safe and fixing the flawed legislation. Only common-sense Conservatives will act with the urgency and the specificity required to keep women and children in Canada safe.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill S-12.

As was said, when we were in government, we brought in changes to have a mandatory listing of all convicted sex offenders put in the registry. We had to respond to a Supreme Court decision, and the government's response has been tepid. One of the amendments that Conservatives put forward at committee would be to require the mandatory listing of all convicted child sex offenders. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that would have prevented that step from happening.

The Liberal and NDP coalition voted against the common sense amendment that would have listed all convicted child sex offenders. Can the member tell me what message she feels that sends to Canadians?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for all the work he does with respect to justice for victims and with respect to criminal law reform in Canada.

Our children are our most precious resource. I am sure this is felt around the world, but it certainly is true here in Canada. If we cannot move to protect our children, then what is it exactly that we are accomplishing with any legislation in this place?

An amendment that would require registration of those who are convicted of sex offences against children is one of the few ways to protect them. I know that in my own case, I was lured away from the safety of my home and my family by older people, older teenagers, in fact. I was not even a teenager yet. Children are powerless against predators who would do them harm. If someone is accused of doing harm to a child in Canada, they should be on the registry.